11-3-93 Agenda and Packet FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1993, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Proposed Planned Unit Development to rezone 80.8 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural
Estate to PUD and preliminary plat proposal to subdivide 80.8 acres into 134 single family lots
and 7 outlots. The property is located just south of Lyman Boulevard, east of Hwy. 101 and west
of Lake Riley Blvd., Dolejsi and Rogers property, Lundgren Bros.
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS
OPEN DISCUSSION
2. Discussion of Highway 5 Corridor Plan.
3. Planning Commission Goals.
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws.
We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does
not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items
thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
PC DATE: 11/3/93
C I TY 0 F CC DATE: 11/22/93
1
CHANHASSEN CASE #: 93-6 PUD
By:Generous/Hempel/Desotelle:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Proposed Preliminary Planned Unit Development Approval of 80.8
acres, rezoning of property zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate, to PUD
Residential, Preliminary Plat approval to create 134 single-family lots.
F-
Z LOCATION: Southeast corner of State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard.
a
V APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
a_
PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate
DENSITY: Gross: 1.7 units per acre
Net: 2.5 units per acre
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - A-2, large lots and farmland and RSF, vacant tracts and wetlands
S - A-2, Bandimere Park, RSF, Shore Acres and Bandimere Heights
Subdivisions, and PUD-R, Sunny Slope Addition
E - RSF, Shore Acres Subdivision, Rogers Addition, and Lake Riley
W - A-2, farmland
0 ' WATER AND SEWER: Unavailable
w PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Rolling cultivated farmland.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density 1.4 - 4.0 Units Per Acre)
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
concurrence at least for the most part as to what would be good to see inbetween Powers
Boulevard and Highway 41. Highway 5 so, and I don't think that this is counter productive.
I just would like to see us refine that more as to where those buildings meet up with the
highway. And I see that as additional information to come so I personally have no problems
with this and I'd entertain any motion. If somebody wants to do it other than modifying 2. I
would fully support staff's recommendation.
Scott: Okay. If someone wants to take a whack at a motion.
Ledvina: I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approval of the conceptual planned unit development #93-5. The applicant being
Centex Real Estate Corporation subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with
modification to condition number 2 to read, the applicant shall submit additional information
and more detail on issues such as tree inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance.
with Highway 5 goals, traffic considerations for the Highway 5/Galpin Boulevard
intersection, public safety issues as it relates to increased traffic on Galpin Boulevard and the
proposed frontage road. Also, as it relates to density and impervious surface ratio.
Mancino: Second.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Conceptual PUD #93-5 subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to
preliminary plat submittal.
2. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree
inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance with Highway 5 goals, traffic
considerations for the Highway 5/Galpin Boulevard intersection, public safety issues
as it relates to increased traffic on Galpin Boulevard and the proposed frontage
road. Also, as it relates to density and impervious surface ratio.
3. The area to be mitigated should be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap
additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development.
The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment
of different vegetative zones. The storm water pond must meet NURP standards. A
buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by
the city with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet.
4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin
15
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping.
5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of
trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer.
6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State Aid standards.
7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10
year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's
water quality standards (NURP).
8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in
the development contract.
9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993.
10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27,
1993.
11. Compliance with the PUD and Highway 5 Design Standards and respond to other issues
raised in the staff report.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY (190
DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62.05
ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND A2 AND VACATION OF A PORTION
OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT
86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Public Present:
Name Address
16
Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant, Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc., is requesting rezoning from A-2 to
PUD-R, preliminary PUD and preliminary plat approval for the Dolejsi and Rogers properties.
The site is an 80.8 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of State Highway 101 and
Lyman Boulevard on cultivated farmland. The proposal includes 134 single-family lots, right-
of-way dedication for Lyman Boulevard, State Highway 101, and Lake Riley Boulevard, local
road right-of-way within the project, and seven outlots. The project is bordered on the north
by Lyman Boulevard, on the west by State Highway 101, and on the east by Lake Riley
Boulevard. The project is bordered on the south by Bandimere Community Park, Bandimere
Heights Subdivision, and Sunny Slope Addition Subdivision. A five acre parcel belonging to
Vencil G. Prewitt is located in the north central part of the project and is surrounded on three
sides by the project boundaries. Four of the outlots (A, B, C, and E) are proposed for project
identification monuments including signage, lighting, decorative architectural features and
landscaping. Outlot D is proposed for an entrance monument and a stormwater treatment
pond. Outlot F is the Dolejsi homesite and will remain in their possession. Outlot G is a
proposed 5.3 acre parcel to be dedicated to the City for park land.
Flexibility permitted in a PUD is being used to allow for creativity in lot layout as well as
protection for existing and proposed residents. Lots located along the perimeter of the project
are larger in size to provide added setbacks and buffering for the project. While the
subdivision requirements prohibit double frontage lots, creating additional lots fronting on
Lake Riley Boulevard, a substandard street, would not be beneficial to the city or current
residents. Additionally, the proposed development creates a sense of neighborhood that
would be reduced if these lots were reversed to front on Lake Riley Boulevard and be backed
by an additional row of lots. These lots are also oversized, permitting additional separation.
Smaller lots are located in the interior of the project. Lot frontages vary from 62 feet to 149
feet. Lot depths vary from 84 feet to 426 feet. Lot sizes range from 11,004 square feet to
57,423 square feet. The average lot size of 17,814 square feet exceeds the standard lot size
of 15,000 square feet by almost 19 percent.
Primary access to the project is proposed via two curb cuts on Lyman Boulevard with a
secondary internal connection to the south along Kiowa Trail. Kiowa Trail is an existing
street that was anticipated to be connected to the north. This roadway is an extremely long
dead end, which poses public safety concerns and as such staff feels compelled to recommend
that this roadway be connected to provide an alternate outlet for current residents. This
connection will also provide two means for city residents to access Bandimere Community
Park. Internal streets are curvilinear and designed with fifty (50) foot right-of-ways. Stub
roads are extended to the Prewitt property. (A development sketch illustrates a potential
future road alignment and platting for the property.) No access is proposed onto Lake Riley
Boulevard. We are also anticipating the upgrading of Lyman Boulevard as part of the utility
extension that is being petitioned by surrounding property owners.
Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 3
Because this property is being farmed, there are little if any natural features to be protected.
A small wetland exists in the extreme northeast corner of the site that will be retained.
Currently, there are serious stormwater drainage problems to the north and south of this
property resulting from stormwater runoff from the site. The applicant's proposal provides
measures to resolve these conditions and improve both stormwater retention and treatment.
The applicant's improvements conform to those shown in the Stormwater Management Plan.
The few trees on the site (22 total) are located along the eastern perimeter of the property.
Of these trees, only two, a 25 inch diameter American Hackberry and a 31 inch diameter Red
Maple, are included in the City's landscaping tree list. Because of the location of the these
trees, it will be possible to retain all trees through the development process.
In summary, the proposal represents a subdivision design utilizing the flexibility inherent in a
PUD to provide protection to existing and proposed residents by creating larger lots on the
perimeter of the project adjacent to major roadways and existing subdivisions and locating
smaller lots within the interior of the project. The average lot size for the 134 lots proposed
is 17,814, which represents a net density of 2.44 units per acre, well within the density range
permitted in the comprehensive plan. The applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance
from the standard ten foot setback requirement. They are proposing six (6) foot garage and
nine (9) foot living area setbacks with a minimum twenty (20) foot separation between
structures.
Staff is recommending that the project be approved for rezoning, preliminary PUD plan and
preliminary plat approval subject to appropriate conditions and stipulated revisions. However,
the setback variance request is not supported by unique physical characteristics of the site or
protection of environmental features and should be denied. We have also recommended that
an access to Lake Riley Boulevard be provided in the southeast corner of the development to
improve access into this area. Lake Riley Boulevard is an unusually long dead end street
built to inadequate standards. The City's fire marshal has also raised the concern that this
inadequacy creates serious safety implications for the residents of the cul-de-sac. Staff does
not expect that this connection will be used extensively by residents of this development.
Rather existing residents will be provided an additional ingress/egress to their homes.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site features rolling farmland with steep slopes at the northeastern corner transitioning
into a wetland at the southwest corner of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard. This
wetland is characterized as Ag/Urban having been significantly altered by urban development
and agricultural drainage. Increased slopes are also present abutting the Sunny Slopes
Addition subdivision in the southeast boundary of the project. A Williams Brothers pipeline
and easement runs from the northwest to the southeast on the western edge of the
development. Surrounding land uses include:
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 4
NORTH: Lyman Boulevard. Large lots on Agricultural Estate (A-2) property as
well as some farmed lands. Additional vacant lands are zoned
Residential Single Family (RSF). Two wetland areas, one Natural and
the other Ag/Urban are located north of Lyman Boulevard.
SOUTH: A single-family home and Bandimere Community Park on land zoned
A-2; Bandimere Heights and Shore Acres Subdivision on property
zoned RSF: and Sunny Slope Addition on property zoned PUD-R.
EAST: Lake Riley Boulevard, Shore Acres Subdivision and Rogers Addition on
property zoned RSF.
WEST: State Highway 101 and farmland on property zoned A-2.
•
BACKGROUND
The site and the land to the north were incorporated into the MUSA line under the 1991
comprehensive plan update. The property is currently being used to cultivate crops.
REZONING TO PUD
Section 20-501 of the City Code provides a general intent statement for planned unit
developments. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through
relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of PUD zoning allows for
internal transfers of density. In exchange for this flexibility, the City expects the development
to meet significantly higher quality standards and be a more sensitive proposal than would
have been achieved through standard zoning requirements. Under this section of the Code,
the following nine items are listed which the PUD should provide:
(1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes
and scenic views.
Findin
The site is bordered on the north and west by Lyman Boulevard and Highway
101. These roads are shown as collector and minor arterial, respectively, on the
City's comprehensive plan. Siting of homes adjacent to these roadways would be
undesirable without providing additional lot sizes to buffer the future residents of
the site from traffic. Additionally, a Williams Brothers pipeline runs through
the rear yards of the lots on the western edge of the project. These lots are being
oversized to accommodate the development of the lots. Larger lots are also being
Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 5
provided along the eastern and southern perimeter of the site abutting existing
subdivisions. The few trees on site, the steep slope in the northeast corner, and
the wetland will all be protected due to the larger size of lots in these areas.
(2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through
mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Finding
The PUD allows location of smaller lots in the interior of the project and larger
lots on the perimeter. PUD flexibility is used to locate home sites in areas where
their impact will be minimized.
(3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including
both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should
reflect high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Finding
The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality
homes. The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating
larger lots adjacent to existing uses. This is a residential development in the
middle of existing residential subdivisions.
(4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and
along significant corridors within the city.
Finding
The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential. Transitional development
is not really a factor with this proposal.
(5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finding
The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the
property as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units/acre). The proposal has a net
density (minus outlots and roads) of 2.44 units/acre. This compares favorably
with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net
density of 2 units per acre. The site was included in the recent Comprehensive
Plan amendment for development with sewer and water and as a single family
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 6
development. The applicant is also providing right-of-way for State Highway 101
and Lyman Boulevard which are shown as a minor arterial and a collector
roadway, respectively, in the comprehensive plan.
(6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and
overall trail plan.
Finding
The applicant is dedicating 5.3 acres of park land adjacent to Bandimere
Community Park. The City is also proposing the provision of a small trail
segment in the southeast quadrant of the site to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle
access to Bandimere Park.
(7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD.
Findin
The applicant is proposing a variety of lot sizes and housing units. Overall, the
sites will be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses
and potential future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed.
This project is not designed to address lower cost housing opportunities. The city
is investigating this issue and is considering direct financial support to encourage
its construction since the free market is unable to meet this demand.
(8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings
and the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding
It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration, but all homes
will meet current energy codes.
(9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as
appropriate.
Findin
The proposal is providing right-of-way for the future expansion of Lyman
Boulevard State Highway 101, and Lake Riley Boulevard. This site will be served
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 7
by two curb cuts onto Lyman Boulevard and is providing a connection to
Bandimere Heights Subdivision through the extension of Kiowa Trail. Internal
local streets are included as part of the development. Staff is proposing that an
additional connection be provided to Lake Riley Boulevard to provide a
secondary access for residents and emergency vehicles. This access would shorten
the dead end by approximately one-quarter mile.
There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent
statement states the developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return
for enhancing environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing
a higher quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit
development must also meet the following guidelines:
(b) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a
minimum of 11,000 square feet . The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix
of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and
open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will
be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot
is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding
into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a
minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required
home/deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements.
Findin
The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 11,004 square feet to 57,423 square
feet (not including outlots) with an average net lot area of 17,814 square feet.
(c) Minimum lot width at building setback: Ninety (90) feet.
Finding
All the lots appear to meet this requirement.
(d) Minimum lot depth: One hundred (100) feet
Finding
All of the lots exceed the minimum 100 feet lot depth requirement. While one
side of one lot is less than 100 feet, the average of the lot depth for that lot is 106
feet.
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 8
(e) Minimum setbacks:
PUD exterior: thirty (30) feet
Front yard: thirty (30) feet
Rear yard: thirty (30) feet
Side yard: ten (10) feet
Adjacent to arterial or collector roads, a fifty (50) foot setback shall be maintained.
Finding
The proposal provides ample lot areas to maintain a thirty (30) foot PUD exterior
setback as well as the fifty (50) foot setback from Lyman Boulevard and State
Highway 101. Lots are shown with thirty (30) foot front setbacks. There is
sufficient lot depth to meet the thirty (30) foot rear setback. The narrative
provided by the developer proposes a six (6) foot garage and nine (9) foot living
area side setbacks with minimum structure separation of twenty (20) feet.
However, staff believes that this variance from the PUD standards are not
justified due to site or environment issues and, therefore, should be denied.
(f) Protection and preservation of natural features.
Finding
While there are few natural features on site, the wetland and the few trees will be
protected as part of the development.
g) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following:
1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of
over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed
entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and
roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required
to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography.
2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots.
Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may
be required.
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 9
3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be
established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD,
the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the
required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide
financial guarantees acceptable to the city.
4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed
tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans
should be developed to maximize tree preservation.
Finding
The existing trees shall be protected as part of the development. The applicant
shall be required to provide perimeter berming and landscaping as a condition of
approval. An approved landscaping budget will be a condition of final platting.
The berming and landscaping adjacent to State Highway 101 and Lyman
Boulevard shall provide a visual buffer of the home sites from the road. The
landscaping along Lake Riley Boulevard shall provide screening and a sense of
transition from the existing homes into the development.
r h) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide
for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement
is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be
prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city
that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place
without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the
following:
1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments.
2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is
felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot
sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in
the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room
to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit.
3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage
buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining
parcels due to small lot sizes.
Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 10
Findin
The applicant has stated in their narrative that they will incorporate current and
updated home designs within their development. Due to variety of lots sizes, it
should be possible to provide a variety of home types and designs to meet the
needs of the residents. The City should establish guidelines for the screening of
rear yards along Lake Riley Boulevard to limit potentially negative impacts to
properties along the roadway.
SUMMARY OF REZONING
The subject site being located adjacent to two major roadways and existing single-family
subdivisions is ideally suited for a planned unit development. The flexibility of the PUD
standards results in a reduction of impacts to both current and future residents of the area.
The ability to average the lot sizes permits the siting of large home sites along the perimeter
of the development and smaller home sites in the project's interior. The few natural features
of the site are also being protected as part of the development.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The preliminary plat will subdivide the site into 134 lots. Additionally, there is a 1.7 acre
outlot containing the existing Dolejsi home. All lots meet or exceed City Code requirements
as illustrated in the compliance table (see Attachment #1). Lot areas range from 11,004
square feet to 57,423 square feet with an average lot size of 17,814 square feet.
There are a total of seven outlots in the plat as follows:
Outlot A 14,198 square feet located at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and
State Highway 101. This outlot will contain a development monument
and landscaping.
Outlot B 5, 488 square feet located at the western entrance road on Lyman
Boulevard. This outlot will contain an entrance monument and
landscaping.
Outlot C 4,996 square feet located at the western entrance road on Lyman
Boulevard. This outlot will contain an entrance monument and
landscaping.
Outlot D 25,363 square feet located at the eastern entrance road on Lyman
Boulevard. This outlot will contain an entrance monument and
landscaping and a NURP pond.
Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 11
Outlot E 4,522 square feet located at the eastern entrance road on Lyman
Boulevard. This outlot will contain an entrance monument and
landscaping.
Outlot F 72,766 square feet located in the south central part of the project
adjacent to the proposed Kiowa Trail road connection. This site
contains the Dolejsi home.
Outlot G 231,321 square feet located in the southwest corner of the project. This
land is to be dedicated to the City for park land.
WETLANDS
The 80-acre site consists of rolling terrain mostly employed in agricultural practices and also
includes a nursery stock area. The site also contains a wetland located in the northeast corner
of the site. The wetland is classified as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin
PEMC; circular 39 type III inland shallow fresh water marsh). The City of Chanhassen has
classified this wetland basin as an ag/urban wetland indicating the wetland has a moderate to
low functional value. The wetland is approximately 0.50 acres in size. No alteration is
proposed to the wetland with this development proposal. Storm water runoff generated from
the development will be from the rear yard areas of those lots which abut Lake Riley
Boulevard. The predeveloped runoff currently drains into the wetland from the agricultural
practices as well as the street runoff from Lake Riley Boulevard which will continue with or
without this development. Since there is no alteration proposed to the wetland, a wetland
alteration permit is not required under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act or the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The City of Chanhassen's wetland ordinance should be employed
by requiring a buffer strip and appropriate setbacks for the houses adjacent to the wetland. In
the future when Lyman Boulevard is upgraded this wetland may be enlarged to function as a
portion of a two-cell drainage facility, with one cell being a pretreatment basin to treat storm
runoff from Lake Riley Boulevard prior to discharging into the wetland which eventually
flows underneath Lyman Boulevard to the north into a more pristine wetland.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The preliminary grading plans do not provide existing ground contour information. Upon
conversations with the applicant, apparently the information was provided on the original
drawings; however, during the duplication process the information was not printed through on
to our plan set. The applicant is going to supply staff with the appropriate topographic
information. Based on the preliminary grading plan, the entire site will eventually be graded
with completion of the six phases. The proposed grades offer a wide variety of building
elevations over the development. Ground elevations range from 928.5 in the northwest corner
of the site to 901.5 in the northeast corner of the site.
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 12
The plans also propose a series of storm sewer catch basins and ponding basins to retain and
treat storm runoff. Staff has not and typically does not receive drainage and ponding
calculations until the final platting phase. City ordinance requires that the storm sewers are
designed and constructed to handle a 10-year storm event. The storm sewer ponds (NURP
basins) are required to meet Chanhassen's water quality standards and maintain the surface
water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-
hour storm event through the use of storm water detention or retention facilities of other
appropriate means approved by the city engineer. Detailed storm sewer and ponding
calculations for the entire development will be required in conjunction with final platting of
Phase I.
The site has three different drainage subdistricts, two of which drain to Lake Riley and the
other west underneath Trunk Highway 101 to a large wetland basin. According to the City's
preliminary stormwater management plan (SWMP), the applicant is for the most part
proposing NURP basins in accordance to the City SWMP plan. Final design of the drainage
system will be considered with the final plat approval process along with the feasibility study
for the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard.
This site has a history of creating some downstream drainage problems on the adjacent
parcels to the north and south. To the north, an existing drainage ditch (between Lot 3 and 5,
Block 5) continues to erode and wash sediments north underneath Lyman Boulevard to a
wetland basin. The preliminary plans propose on creating a NURP adjacent to Lyman
Boulevard to pretreat storm runoff prior to discharging underneath Lyman Boulevard.
Although this will improve water quality, it still will not resolve the erosion problem being
created from the discharge off the site. The SWMP plan recommend that a lateral storm
sewer pipe be extended down to the wetland located in the northeast corner of the site. Since
this water will already be pretreated prior to discharging in the wetland, a sediment basin will
not be required adjacent to the wetland.
A single-family subdivision (Sunny Slope Addition) exists to the south of Lots 19-22, Block
5. This area has received in the past overland drainage from the agricultural fields as well as
the nursery stock area. During intense rains, the runoff has contained large amounts of
sediments which have washed into neighboring properties and on through the City's culvert at
Lake Riley Boulevard and into Lake Riley. The applicant is proposing a NURP basin for
pretreatment of stormwater runoff prior to discharging through to Lake Riley Boulevard. This
outlet storm pipe is proposed to be constructed in an area which contains steep grades and
heavy vegetation and outlets on to Lake Riley Boulevard which is unacceptable to staff. The
natural drainage pattern for this development is between the existing homes in Sunny Slope
Addition just south of Lots 20-22, Block 5. Staff has discussed this drainage situation with
the applicant who is willing to consider relocating the outlet pipe if they are able to acquire
the necessary drainage and utility easements to extend storm sewer through the Sunny Slope
Addition to Lake Riley. Staff has indicated that the City would assist the applicant in
Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 13
meeting the homeowners affected by the easement acquisition. The City has existing drainage
and utility easements south of Deerfoot Trail down along the common property lines to Lake
Riley. The City would also be willing to participate in a cost sharing project to pay a portion
of the oversizing cost of the storm sewer system which lies south of Deerfoot Trail. The
City's portion of the storm sewer would be for the oversizing of lateral line which would
collect stormwater runoff from Sunny Slope Addition as well as portions of Lake Riley
Boulevard lying south of the proposed subdivision. This agreement could be worked out
prior to final platting.
The westerly portion of the development drains to a small wetland area located just south of
the development and just west of Outlot G (Finger Property). According to the City's
wetland inventory, this wetland is classified as a ag-urban in very poor condition. The
wetland also contains a draintile system as well as landscape plant material from the property
owner. Other than redirecting surface runoff from the wetland, the development proposes no
adverse impacts or alterations. The applicant's stormwater plan is proposing a NURP basin
just north of the wetland located on the Finger parcel. This NURP basin will intercept and
pretreat stormwater runoff from the subdivision prior to discharging into a ditch section which
eventually drains through a culvert underneath Trunk Highway 101. Some minor ditch
restoration and culvert cleaning (Trunk Highway 101) may be necessary to restore the normal
drainage patterns.
Three NURP basins are proposed adjacent to Lyman Boulevard as previously indicated. All
three basins are proposed to encroach upon the dedicated right-of-way of Lyman Boulevard.
Staff has asked the applicant to review this and make modifications accordingly. Staff has
also indicated to the applicant with the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard that some adjustments
may be necessary to their storm drainage system. The applicant indicated that they would be
willing to work with City staff in modifying their plans accordingly.
STREETS
The applicant is proposing dedication of 3.1 acres of land for State Highway 101 and 4.7
acres for Lyman Boulevard to accommodate the future expansion of both of these roadways.
These roads are shown as arterial and collector roadways on the City's comprehensive plan.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing the dedication of 0.6 acres for Lake Riley Boulevard.
Internal roadways are proposed using fifty (50) foot right-of-way and are curvilinear in
nature. While the City has accepted fifty (50) foot right-of-way widths in the past, in this
instance there are no compelling reasons for the City to accept less than sixty (60) feet of
right-of-way within the development since there are no outstanding physical limitations within
the development to prohibit standard width roadways.
The City has received a petition signed by the applicant/property owner along with two other
property owners in the neighborhood for the extension of trunk utilities. The City will
Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 14
consider the petition at the next available City Council meeting sometime in November to
discuss whether authorization of an updated feasibility study is warranted. If the Council
authorizes the updated feasibility study, staff anticipates that the public hearing process along
with plans and specifications preparation and bidding, that construction would not proceed
until August or September of 1995.
The plans propose three accesses to the 80-acre site. Two from Lyman Boulevard and one
from Kiowa Trail. The site also border Lake Riley Boulevard to the east. According to City
records, Lake Riley Boulevard is a 2,300 foott a long dead end cul-de-sac without municipal
water service. The street section consist of a 21 foot wide bituminous street with no curb and
gutter or storm sewer system. Engineering staff recommends that the cul-de-sac located in
Phase 3 (the southeast corner of the proposed development, Lots 14 through 18, Block 5) be
extended to Lake Riley Boulevard to provide additional access for the Lake Riley Boulevard
residents. This access would reduce the length of the dead end on Lake Riley Boulevard by
1,200 feet. Staff does not believe by connecting these two neighborhood would inadversely
increase traffic volumes through either neighborhoods. It simply will provide an additional
access to Lyman Boulevard for the Lake Riley Hills residents.
Lake Riley Boulevard is currently is constructed within a 40-foot wide right-of-way for the
most part except for that portion of the boulevard which lies approximately 600 feet south of
Lyman Boulevard. In this area, the right-of-way meanders back and forth. The applicant is
proposing to dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way for a total of 50 feet of right-of-
way along Lake Riley Boulevard. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate an additional
10 feet of right-of-way to meet City standards which is 60 feet of right-of-way. The existing
plat (Shore Acres) which lies immediately adjacent to the east of Lake Riley Boulevard
dedicated 33 feet of right-of-way which is was subdivided some time ago.
The applicant is also proposing to dedicate additional right-of-way for the upgrade of Lyman
Boulevard pursuant to staff recommendations. Provisions have been made for realigning
Lyman Boulevard to the south to avoid impact to the wetlands located on the north side of
Lyman Boulevard. Once the City completes the feasibility study for upgrading Lyman
Boulevard, the unnecessary right-of-way may be vacated back to the applicant.
The plans do not provide street grades for staff review. However, staff has been in contact
with the applicants engineer who has informed staff that the street grades will meet the City
requirements which are 0.50% to 7.0% slope.
The plans propose the new streets be constructed within a 50-foot wide right-of-way
subdivision. The City's subdivision ordinance requires a 60-foot wide right-of-way be
dedicated. Staff believes even though this is a PUD, we feel there should be no
compromising on the street right-of-way width. We have typically only allowed undersized
right-of-way when tree preservation is an issue and in this case it is not. Engineering staff
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 15
has already compromised on a couple of design standards such as the distance between
intersections and geometric layouts. The applicant requested two three-way intersections to
facilitate the existing property owner's homesite on Outlot F. From a traffic circulation and
safety standpoint, the preferred street configuration would be one four-way intersection. The
City's ordinance under subdivision regulations requires that the intersections be spaced
approximately 300 feet apart. There are currently four intersections that do not meet this
design standard. Staff, however, has had conversations with the applicant and feels since the
traffic volumes are fairly low that the intersection spacing as proposed is acceptable.
The street system proposed within Phase 5 (Block 4) is bisected by a parcel of land which is
exempt from this development. The applicant has shown on the landscape plan how this
parcel could develop in the future when the property owner is ready to subdivide. In the
meantime, temporary turnarounds will be necessary at the end of each street.
Outlot F contains an existing homesite which driveway extends to a common or shared gravel
private driveway at the end of Kiowa Trail. The private driveway also serves three other
properties adjacent to this site. Based on the landscape plan, it appears the private driveway
which serves the other three homes also encroaches on Outlot F. The applicant/property
owner should enter into a driveway easement agreement with the other three property owners
if one doesn't already exist.
The plans do not indicate the proposed street section. It is recommended that the City's
typical urban street section which is 31 feet back-to-back curb and gutter be required. Since
Bandimere Park is located immediately to the south of this development, a sidewalk should
also be considered along the north/south street which extends north of Kiowa Trail to provide
an added degree of pedestrian safety. Another alternative would be for an off-street trail
network to provide some continuity between the existing proposed neighborhoods.
Detailed street construction plans and specifications shall be required as a part of final plat
approval. The construction plans and specification shall be designed in accordance to the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Construction plans and
specifications shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by the City
Council in conjunction with the final platting.
UTILITIES
Site is located within the urban sewer service area (MUSA). However, at this time, municipal
sanitary sewer and water service is not immediately available to the entire site. Water service
currently exists at Trunk Highway 101 and Lake Susan Drive approximately 1/2 mile north of
the site. Sanitary sewer is extended along Lake Riley Boulevard through a lift station which
is located at the intersection of Lake Riley Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. The existing lift
Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 16
station and sewer lines are not capable of servicing the entire development due to capacity
and elevation constraints.
Last year the City considered a petition for the extension of trunk utilities to serve this area
immediately north of Lyman Boulevard (John Klingelhutz property). A feasibility study
looked at two alternatives for utility service to the area. However, the project never
materialized due to problems with easement acquisition. The City has received another
petition from the applicant and other property owners in the area. The petition is requesting
the City to update the current feasibility study for the extension of trunk utilities into the area.
The City Council will be considering the petition at the next available Council agenda which
is anticipated some time in November, 1993. Without the extension of municipal trunk
utilities and reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard, the project should be considered premature.
Preliminary and final plat approval should be conditioned upon the City authorizing and
awarding a public improvement project for the extension of municipal utility service in the
upgrading of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards.
The preliminary utility plans are laid out fairly well. The utility layout will be studied in
greater detail with the updated feasibility study which will assist in determining the best and
most feasible methods for servicing the development. Detailed utility and street construction
plans and specifications will be required as a part of final plat approval. Construction plans
and specifications shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by the City
Council.
Fire hydrants are located throughout the development. The City's fire marshal requires
hydrants to be spaced approximately 300 feet apart. The fire hydrants on the preliminary
utility layout are proposed approximately 400 feet apart. The City fire marshal will be
reviewing the fire hydrant locations and address locations during the final plan and plat
review process.
The plans propose on extending water service throughout the development including
extending a watermain stub to existing Kiowa Trail. Staff also recommends extending a
watermain stub to Lake Riley Boulevard between Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 to provide a loop
system in the future when water service is extended along Lake Riley Boulevard. This is the
same location where staff has previously recommended that the cul-de-sac be extended to
connect to Lake Riley Boulevard.
The existing home on Outlot F is currently on its own well and septic system. In accordance
to City code, the property owner will be required to connect to City sewer and water within
12 months from the date the system becomes operational or if the well or septic fails, which
occurs first.
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 17
MISCELLANEOUS
The applicant should be aware that the extension of trunk utility and upgrading of Lyman
Boulevard will sustain assessment against this development. Again, once the feasibility study
has been prepared and accepted, we will have a better handle on the financial impacts the
public improvements will have against this parcel. This will be further addressed in the final
plat review process and conditions incorporated with the development contract.
TREE PRESERVATION
There are a total of twenty-two (22) trees locating on the subject property. While only two of
the trees are on the City's list of desired trees, all existing trees can be preserved as part of
the development of the site. The rows of tree that have been planted on the site have been
excluded from the tree survey since they will be removed from the property by the owner.
The developer will be required to develop a landscaping plan for the perimeter of the project
along all existing roadways as well as establish a landscaping budget for the individual lots.
All tree plantings will be from the preferred list provided by code. The applicant is
proposing to plant 211 overstory trees, 121 evergreen trees, and 53 ornamental trees, plus 144
shrubs at various locations throughout the site. However, it is uncertain if this amount is for
interior or perimeter planting. Therefore, we are asking that for final approval, the following
be incorporated:
1. Detailed plans for landscaping and berming all exterior roadways. These
features must be significant enough to buffer direct views of abutting home
sites from Lyman Boulevard and State Highway 101 and provide a natural
transition from Lake Riley Boulevard into the development .
2. Tree plantings are to meet the minimum size standards in City Code and to be
selected from the official tree list of the City.
3. All landscaping shall be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees.
PARK AND RECREATION
The applicant is proposing the dedication of approximately 5.3 acres to the City for park land.
This is adjacent to lands currently owned by the City for Bandimere Heights Community
Park. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this development at their meeting of
September 28, 1993. The Commission recommended that the City require the dedication of
5.3 acres of park land as shown on the applicant's concept plan dated August 20, 1993, in
lieu of park fees. The applicant will also be required to provide a park trail connection from
Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 18
the southeast quadrant of the development to Lake Riley Boulevard. This trail will provide
pedestrian and bicycle access to Bandimere Park.
The comprehensive plan shows trail systems on State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard.
These trails will be included in the future upgrade of these roadways. Full trail fees shall be
required as a part of this development
COMPLIANCE TABLE
See Attachment 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary PUD of 80.8 acres of
property to create 134 single-family lots, preliminary plat approval, and rezoning of the
property from A-2, Agricultural Estate, to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development - Residential,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Submittal of street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for
review and approval prior to final plat approval.
2. Revise grading and erosion control plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and
garage floor elevation before final plat approval.
3. Tree preservation/landscaping:
a. Detailed plans for perimeter berming and landscaping. A landscaped buffer
shall be provided along State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. This buffer
shall be sufficient to screen direct views of the homesite from the roadway.
Additional landscaping shall be provided along Lake Riley Boulevard to
provide a natural transition from Lake Riley Boulevard into the development.
b. Tree planting to meet minimum size standards in City Code and to be selected
from the official tree list.
c. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees to assure
installation and survival.
d. Existing trees listed in the tree survey to be preserved as part of the
development.
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 19
e. Development of an approved landscape budget prior to City approval of the
final plat.
4. The applicant shall dedicate 5.3 acres of park land to the City in lieu of park fees.
5. A trail easement to be dedicated in the southeast quadrant of the site to provide
pedestrian and bicycle access to Lake Riley Boulevard. The trail segment shall be
built by the developer as part of the phase of development including the abutting
property. Full trail fees will be required as part of the development.
6. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' homesite and a 12' x
12' deck and maintain all setbacks on the final plat.
7. A minimum fifty (50) foot building setback shall be maintained from Lyman
Boulevard and State Highway 101. This setback shall be included on the final plat.
8. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all
utilities located outside the public right-of-way. The minimum width shall be twenty
(20) feet.
9. No lots shall have driveway access to State Highway 101, Lyman Boulevard, or Lake
Riley Boulevard.
10. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with
the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final
construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council
approval in conjunction with final plat approval.
11. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into a
PUD agreement and development contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final
platting.
12. The City of Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance should be employed to require a buffer
strip and setback for the homes adjacent to the homes in the northeast corner of the
site, specifically Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 5.
13. The grading plan should be revised to include existing ground contours. Street grades
throughout the subdivision shall fall within the City's standard of 0.50% to 7.0%
percent grades.
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 20
14. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to facilitate a 10-year storm event.
The ponding basins are required to meet NURP water quality standards and maintain
the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate
for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations
for the entire development will be required in conjunction with final platting of Phase
I.
15. The drainage basins along Lyman Boulevard shall be sized to accommodate the storm
runoff for the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. The City may contribute towards
the cost of any pond oversizing as a result of additional runoff generated from Lyman
Boulevard. The City will credit the applicant by means of an assessment reduction.
16. Storm sewer and ponding basins shall be designed in accordance to the City's Surface
Water Management Plan. The applicant shall work with staff in relocating or
adjusting the proposed NURP basins adjacent to Lyman Boulevard to be compatible
with the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard.
17. The applicant shall redesign Phase 3 of the development to extend the cul-de-sac to
connect to Lake Riley Boulevard.
18. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat additional road right-of-way along Lake
Riley Boulevard to achieve a 60-foot wide right-of-way. The street right-of-way
throughout the subdivision shall be 60 feet wide.
19. During the construction of each phase, temporary turnarounds shall be provided on all
dead end streets which are proposed to be extended. Barricades shall be placed at the
end of the temporary turnarounds with a sign indicating that "this street shall be
extended in the future".
20. The applicant/property owner of Outlot F shall enter into a driveway easement with
the adjoining three property owners for the use of the existing driveway through
Outlot F if one currently does not exist.
21. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the Chanhassen City
Council authorizing a public improvement project for the extension of trunk utility
service to the area and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards.
22. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance to the City's fire marshal
recommendations.
23. The applicant shall provide a 6-inch watermain stub to Lake Riley Boulevard between
Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 shall be provided.
Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers
November 3, 1993
Page 21
24. The existing home on Outlot F shall be required to connect to City sewer and water
service within 12 months from the date the system becomes available or sooner if the
well and septic system fails.
25. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits i.e Watershed
District, Health Department, MPCA, Williams Brothers Pipeline Company, MWCC.
26. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc mulch or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before
October 31 each construction season accept in areas where utilities and street will be
constructed yet that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities
shall be restored in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for
erosion and sediment control.
27. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to
guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and final platting.
28. The applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the assessments for the
extension of trunk utility improvements and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban
standards.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Applicant's Lot Compliance Table.
2. Minutes from the Park and Recreation Commission meeting of 9/28/93.
3. Letter from Jamie Heilicher dated 10/28/93.
4. Memo from John Uban date 10/28/93.
Lot Size:
Gross Average Lot Size 26,266 s.f.
Net Average Lot Size 17,814 s.f.
Smallest Lot Size 11,004 s.f.
Largest Lot Size 57,423 s.f.
Avg. Lot Size within Shoreline Dist. 18,295 s.f.
Proposed Building Setbacks:
30' Front Yard Setback Typical
30' Rear Yard Setback Minimum
10' Side Yard Setback Minimum (6' Garage& 9' Living with 20' Structure
Separation)
75' to Wetland, 30' to Ponds
50' to Arterial Roads
The following is a lot by lot tabulation.
Block L 1 Area s.f. Block La Area s.f
1 1 14,503 4 1 16,194
1 2 16,335 4 2 15,324
1 3 18,071 4 3 21,599
1 4 16,624 5 1 12,877
1 5 18,579 5 2 19,318
1 6 24,683 5 3 25,080
1 7 27,965 5 4 18,469
1 8 31,302 5 5 18,490
1 9 29,990 5 6 27,745
1 10 28,611 5 7 57,423
1 11 38,564 5 8 33,357
1 12 45,441 5 9 21,374
1 13 45,404 5 10 28,183
1 14 24,634 5 11 20,971
1 15 24,461 5 12 19,197
1 16 13,530 5 13 21,096
1 17 11,288 5 14 26,491
1 18 16,220 5 15 25,171
Rogers/Dolejsi P.U.D. October, 1993 4
Block Area s.f. Block 1 ..t Area s.f.
1 19 32,694 5 16 23,948
1 20 22,971 5 17 23,401
1 21 15,114 5 18 23,219
1 22 14,231 5 19 23,542
1 23 14,551 5 20 24,411
1 24 15,344 5 21 19,943
1 25 13,766 5 22 30,337
1 26 16,051 6 1 16,009
-- 1 27 15,449 6 2 12,960
1 28 17,324 6 3 13,138
1 29 16,622 6 4 14,030
- 1 30 17,521 6 5 14,693
2 1 23,378 6 6 14,006
2 2 12,902 6 7 13,637
2 3 13,428 6 8 13,686
2 4 12,203 6 9 13,695
2 5 12,537 6 10 13,447
2 6 13,439 6 11 12,204
2 7 16,466 6 12 11,913
2 8 12,476 6 13 12,357
_ 2 9 14,516 6 14 12,522
2 10 12,375 6 15 12,459
2 11 14,376 6 16 12,164
2 12 11,214 6 17 13,140
2 13 17,202 6 18 16,659
2 14 13,333 6 19 11,756
2 15 11,957 6 20 12,349
2 16 12,497 6 21 12,264
2 17 11,452 6 22 14,056
2 18 11,563 6 23 15,326
2 19 12,148 6 24 19.365
2 20 15,460 6 25 16,671
2 21 15,691 6 26 17,298
- 2 22 14,327 6 27 17,398
2 23 17,102 6 28 20,053
2 24 23,412 6 29 16,609
6 30 12,857
6 31 18,302
3 1 17,485 OUTLOT A 14,198
_ 3 2 12,865 B 5,488
3 3 12,048 C 4,996
3 4 12,049 D 25,363
_ 3 5 11,974 E 4,522
3 6 12,605 F 72,766
3 7 11,541 G 231,321
Rogers/Dolejsi P.U.D. October, 1993 5
Block Lot Area s.f.
3 8 14,442
3 9 16,245
3 10 11,832
3 11 12,631
3 12 16,029
3 13 16,508
3 14 19,540
3 15 20,748
3 16 16,424
3 17 13,949
3 18 13,843
3 19 14,352
3 20 11,631
3 21 11,007
3 22 11,019
3 23 11,004
3 24 14,907
Development Summary:
Total Acres 80.8 ac.
-Highway 101 ROW 3.1 ac.
-Lyman Boulevard ROW 4.7 ac.
-Lake Riley Blvd. ROW .6 ac.
-Residential ROW 9.4 ac.
Total R.O.W. 17.8 ac.
Outlot Area 2.9 ac.
Park Area 5.3 ac.
Net Lot Area 54.8 ac.
Average Lot Size 17,814 s.f.
Number of Lots 134
Gross Density 1.7 un./ac.
Net Density 2.5 un./ac.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A
36,023 SQ FT LOT TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND AN OUTLOT TO
BE COMBINED WITH A LOT LOCATED IN SHOREWOOD, 6200 CHASKA ROAD,
JEAN ADDITION, FRANK REESE.
Todd Hoffman presented a brief staff report on this item.
Schroers: So it's pretty cut and dry. Any questions?
Lash: I'm just curious why somebody's doing this? I mean are they then going to be able to
build on Outlot A if it's combined with this property in Shorewood?
_ Hoffman: Correct. I believe it's developed there already. What they are doing is...have
somebody to developer Lot 1.
Lash: I move that we accept, or that we require current park and trail fees which are not
$600.00 and $200.00 at the rate in force at the time of the application.
Schroers: Is there a second?
Manders: Second.
Lash moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
to accept full park and trail fees for Jean Addition. These fees are to be collected at a
rate in force upon building permit application. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, SUBDIVISION OF 80.8 ACRES INTO 133
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, ROGERS/DOLEJSI PROPERTY, SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 101 SOUTH, LUNDGREN BROTHERS
CONSTRUCTION.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Lash: Can I ask you a question first Todd, before we move on? I'm looking, if I'm looking
at this plan, which is the one that you have on the screen. And then I'm looking at my big
drawing. Where would Kiowa Trail fit in on the big screen there?
19
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993
Hoffman: This one? The one you have?
Lash: Yeah. Is that going to connect to any of those streets or does it just.
Hoffman: They're proposed to connect, yeah. Kiowa Trail is proposed to connect at this
location. This is the terminus of Kiowa Trail at the current time. So Kiowa then drops out
to TH 101. Kiowa terminates there. There's one access boulevard. I believe it's Mr.
Dolejsi's home at that site. And then this would be a proposed connection.
Schroers: Where is.
Lash: Excuse me Larry, so there would be a connection for people on Kiowa Trail and the
people in the Lundgren Bros development to come down through the street to Kiowa Trail?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: Okay. But not Lake Riley Blvd. Okay.
Schroers: Where is Bandimere's neighborhood park?
Hoffman: On this plan? You're just beginning to see the border of it right here.
Bandimere's neighborhood park. And you can see that is Bandimere. This orientation.
Schroers: Okay. So there would be no practical, it wouldn't be practical to make a trail
connection from there to the rest of the park? Coming out of the Bandimere neighborhood
park.
Hoffman: The commission has talked about that in the past and what the consensus has been
is that Bandimere Heights Park, the neighborhood park, is going to remain it's own little
entity. If there was a future trail connection, that certainly could be accomplished.
Schroers: But it wouldn't accomplish what we would like to accomplish?
Hoffman: No. If you want to access the neighborhood park, you would simply just continue
to walk on the road...
Schroers: Okay. And one other dumb question. Why do we want to develop the trail later
along TH 101 and Lyman?
Hoffman: The upgrade of those road systems, as you can see on the overhead. You can
20
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993
probably just take 212 right out of your mind. I mean I don't know when that's going to, we
all don't know when that's going to happen. But that is the, unfortunately if you take it out
of your head, that is the assigned north/south trail corridor. Coming down TH 101 in this
configuration. So if we run this trail out to a point here, we would have to then do a
temporary trail and temporary meaning, 5 years at least. 10 years. 15. I'm not sure when
that would be. So that may not be so temporary but to get people to the west you're going to
have to continue along Lyman and then go north along old TH 101 which will be taken out
when 212 comes through. So what happens in this segment with trails and what you would
gain by putting this segment in is questionable. Now you may, you could gain something if
you took it to this point and then traveled south into the other access on the park but these
folks already have an internal connection so they're not going to, most likely they're not
going to choose that. It would make a circular pattern for them but I don't see the immediate
need such that we did on the Hans Hagen, Stone Creek development. You wanted that to go
in out at Galpin because the school was going to be developed by '95. We wanted to get
people up to the school. What do we want to accomplish? Where do we want to get the
folks who are going to go out on that trail? Where can they go? Who are they trying to
reach? What are they trying to get to?
Schroers: I see your point. The reason that I brought it up was because we had sort of made
it an unofficial policy to get trails in along with development because it is cheaper and when
we have to come back and do it later, after the fact, it always costs, is more expensive and
we never have the money.
Hoffman: I can't argue with that.
Schroers: So I guess to re-ask the question. Would it be reasonable or practical for us to
preclude the trail going south from Lyman down TH 101 on the south?
Hoffman: The additional right-of-way.
Schroers: Or at least to grade it.
Hoffman: Those questions I immediately go back and sit down with our engineers because
obviously when you're talking road upgrade and change the elevations of the roads and
change an alignment at Lyman Blvd because there's a wetland down somewhere in this area
which affects the road alignment, that's the reason...so unless there's a strong desire to have
that trail there, which in order to get it there and make some sense out of it is going to take a
lot of investigation into what the future road alignment will be. How the road will look.
What elevation it will take in it's present alignment versus it's present alignment and those
type of things. So it's kind of a complicated issue.
21
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993
Lash: How far in the future do you expect the road realignment to be?
Hoffman: The TH 101 realignment?
Lash: Either one.
Hoffman: I couldn't speculate.
Lash: How about Lyman?
Hoffman: This road realignment...to Lyman? Again the engineering department tracks that
but just in driving that road today, do you know Terry when they're going to upgrade...this
development?
Terry Forbord: Neither road is on any type of improvement program in the city. There are-
no plans to upgrade either one of those roads.
Lash: Well I just can't imagine with 133 homes going in there, and that's going to be their
main access in and out of that development is going to Lyman. Isn't that still dirt?
Schroers: It's not dirt but it's, the pavement is in poor condition.
Lash: It might as well be. I just can't imagine that they're going to be able to hold off after
the homes are in too much longer after that.
Schroers: Okay. Does Mr. Forbord wish to address the commission this evening?
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, I have no presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Schroers: Okay. Discussion from commission members. Do they have any particular
thoughts or feelings regarding the recommendation or the development here?
Lash: I guess I would agree with Todd's recommendation. The only question I would have
is if it looks like Lyman Blvd were to come on line fairly soon, it would make sense to do
the trail work at that time. If it looks like it's not going to be for years and years, I would
maybe be inclined to want to have the trail construction along Lyman. That is going to help,
well actually along TH 101 too. Because we know that's not going to be for a long time.
That would help a lot of people to make a circle here up Lake Riley to Lyman. Lyman over
to TH 101. Have some short safe passage along TH 101 to the park and then back around
would make a nice big loop and boy, from reading that survey this weekend, people down on
22
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993
TH 101 are very, very interested in getting some trail. It may look like we're doing
something so maybe it needs to be investigated. I can't say for sure on that but Lyman is a
long stretch here and that would be a nice thing to get in as soon as we can but I don't want
to put it in in a year or two and then have them come back the year after that and rip
everything out again. So we need to have maybe a little more information on that. As far as
the trail connection in the southeast quadrant, I think that's a good recommendation from
staff. Basically because I look at neighborhoods. I look at my neighborhood and there's no
trail connection. There' -lathing between lots so if you have little kids, and I'm not talking
little, little kids but if you have kids that you don't want going out to CR 17 to go over to the
next street to their friends house, they've got to cut through somebody's yard, and most
people are okay with that. But you never know and this is really isolating the Lundgren Bros
development from the homes on the south and the people, believe it or not, they're going to
make friends and the kids are going to make friends and they're going to want to go back and
forth and there's no way they're going to be able to do that right now without going out on
— Lake Riley Blvd all the way up to Lyman and then in on a street. It would be a nice thing
for kids to be able to have an access between lots that they could use and ride their bike
without feeling like they're going through somebody's yard with their bike. And I don't
know what the prime spot would be. I guess that would be up to the developer to figure that
out to make that connection.
Schroers: I agree with that also. I think that an access makes a lot of sense. I think that we
will have an opportunity. Our best opportunity's to get trails developed and put in place are
either with developers or with road realignment and it seems to make sense in this point, at
some point in the future, who knows when but we do believe that something will be done
with Lyman and something will be done with TH 101 and it will probably be easier and
better to get the trail put in at that point in time along with the road realignment or upgrading
or whatever. So unless we have any more discussion, I'm ready for a motion.
Manders: I'd just like to say that I would agree that that connection on the trail to the
southeast, Lake Riley trail is a necessary item. I don't think there should be any question
about that going in. As far as the trail system around TH 101 and Lyman, I personally
wouldn't suggest that that go in at this point. I think that should be held off.
Lash: Okay, I'd be ready to make a motion. I would move that we recommend to the City
Council that we require 5.3 acres of parkland dedication as shown on the applicant's concept
plan dated August 20, 1993. In lieu of this we'll waive all park fees. For the trail
recommendation we would ask that the applicant design a trail connection in the southeast
quadrant for Lake Riley Blvd and that since we will be looking at future trail construction on
Lyman Blvd and Highway 101, along with road construction, that we will require full trail
fees at the time of development.
23
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993
Meger: I'll second.
Lash moved, Meger seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
that the City Council require 5.3 acres of parkland dedication as shown on the
applicant's concept plan dated August 20, 1993 in lieu of park fees. The applicant will
design a trail connection in the southeast quadrant for Lake Riley Blvd. The Park and
Recreation Commission recognizes that future trail construction on Lyman Blvd and
Highway 101 will occur along with road realignment construction. Therefore, full trail
fees will be required as a part of this development. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Terry Forbord: May I please enter comments into the record?
Lash: He wants to speak on record.
Schroers: Yes. Go ahead. Or come forward please.
Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Blvd. It was our opinion and our planner's
opinion that there wasn't a need for necessary park dedication in order for Bandimere to
achieve it's goals. We had laid out that site. I've also met with the city's park consultant. It
is possible for the city to put what the city intended to put on Bandimere without taking any
park dedication from Rogers/Dolejsi. In good faith Lundgren Bros came to the city. We sat
down and said we'll work with you on this particular site to try to dedicate some additional
land to make it so the city would not have to grade Bandimere as severely as they would
have had to do if we wouldn't have been willing to dedicate the land. We did so in good
faith and it was our understanding that park and trail fees would be waived in consideration
of that. As all of you know, anytime you dedicate land without anything in return, it poses
some fear of economic impact on not only the property owner but on the land developer
because there's absolutely no way to amortize those costs effectively over the cost of the
entire project. You just can't do it and that's always why there's such a debate with the park
dedication. So the reason that we came forward in a proactive manner was that it was our
understanding the city would then respond also...waive those park and trail fees. In regards to
the trail connection from Lake Riley Blvd, we just don't think that's good planning. You're
going to have a trail in people's back yards and it's just like going through somebody's yard.
It's exactly what it is. And all those people are going to have that little trail there. Those
block values are going to be diminished by at least $10,000.00 per lot and those people who
live there right now along that road there, if they wanted to go to the park right now, today,
they'd really wanted to go to the park, they'd get to the park. Probably go and drive down
Lyman and drive down TH 101 and come in on Kiowa and use that little neighborhood park
and it probably has been used for years. With the construction of the interior street
24
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993
connections as part of this proposal, they easily can get there very quickly. If you live way
down here and you got onto your bike, you could get to this facility at best on a bike within
5 minutes. I mean at the longest. It is not very far away to go. And to put an economic and
negative impact on all these lots, 6 lots, plus the Dolejsi homestead, because they're going to
retain that. So there's 3 lots. You've got 9-10 lots plus all of these people who already have
homes here. I can assure you they're all going to be...so you're going to have at least 14-15
potential, maybe even more, I'd have to count them up. Homeowners that would be very
upset about having a trail there and if those people, like I say, if they want to get to the park,
they'll get to the park. They're not going to say well...trail connection since there's
not...They'll still go to the park. They'll just go on the street. So we're really opposed to
that because we know it will negatively impact the value of those lots. And we know that
those people who live there right now aren't going to want that trail. And just like most
people if you said we're going to put a trail in your yard, most people, maybe some of you.
Maybe some of you feel differently and say yeah, I'd like a trail but I don't want it my back
yard either and I'm just not convinced that that trail is really that important and there's
probably other trails in the city that are.
Lash: Mr. Forbord?
Terry Forbord: Yes.
Lash: Can I just clear up what I had in mind, because I don't think you're understanding
what I had in mind. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that this trail connection needed to go
along the back of all those yards. My idea was actually that it would just be a side yard
connection from the cul-de-sac down in the quadrant over to Lake Riley Blvd because those
people then would be able to access the cul-de-sac out to the street and up to the park.
Hoffman: There's alignment to the north that would even allow more buffering. This would
be a side yard. This would be a rear yard.
Lash: I really didn't intend that it would have to be along the back yard of a whole bunch of
lots and existing lots.
Terry Forbord: Well that's certainly a lot better than what I thought it was but needless to
say we'd be opposed to it because neither one of those home owners are going to want it
either.
Lash: Right, and I can understand that.
Terry Forbord: Again, I don't think anybody's going to say well I would have gone to the
25
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993
park but there's not a connection...Plus if you look at the topography map there, I'm not sure
if the topography between those two lot lines. From Lake Riley Blvd to here there's a rise.
And there's vegetation along there. Those are the comments that I had. Thank you.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, members of the commission. Mr. David Stockdale is out in
the audience this evening. He has scheduled an administrative...stepped out for a minute. I
would just suggest when he steps back in we'll just pick up with that item.
SELECTION OF VENDORS:
A. CARVER BEACH PLAYGROUND.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Berg: Jan, I'd defer to you. If there two were sitting right next to each other, which would
the kids use more?
Lash: Well it really depends a lot on the ages of the kids and that was, I just wrote down
that question. Do we have any clue as to, how this neighborhood is sitting. And I realize
there will be more than neighborhood kids there because of the beach but you know, double
wide slide. What's the height of that?
Hoffman: 40 inches.
Lash: Well, I'd hate to use the b word here but, kind of boring. The tube slide is much
more popular with kids. But, you have a problem then with bigger kids because bigger kids
have trouble fitting in the tube slide without having to hunch over. The bigger kids aren't
going to want to go on a 40 inch, little double wide slide either.
Hoffman: The money that we're spending here just does not allow us to get up to those
higher deck heights.
Schroers: Carver Beach is one of the older neighborhoods in the city and the people that I
know that go to Carver Beach, the youngest kids that I know of that go there are 9 and 10
years old. The majority of them would be young teens so I wonder, I'm wondering if we
should install anything like this. Or if we should take the $3,000.00 and improve the park in
another way.
Lash: Or if you want something that's going to fill a wider age gap for a little big of money,
I'd put in a couple of swings and a tire swing or something like that. Or some, a bay with a
26
I 1 I
ON IWE Dssz o?
- -__ JAMIE HEILICHER --r
Planning Commission October 28, 1993
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
RE: Proposed Development of the Dolejsi & Rodgers Property
Dear Planning Commission Members:
After reviewing the proposed development, I have three major concerns.
1) Storm water run off! How will this development change the flow of storm water?
2) Automobile traffic flow through the Kiowa Trail Neighborhood! The proposed
development would create a substantial increase in the traffic on the existing Kiowa Trail. The
streets of the new development will be 31 feet across, Kiowa Trail is only 18 feet across. At this
time you can not have two cars pass a parked car. With 133 homes using Kiowa Trail as there
access to the south, will this create a dangerous situation to the current Kiowa Trail residence.
3) Automobile traffic passing the pedestrian access to the proposed regional park! The
most important concern is the danger to the children heading to and from the new Regional park.
The only pedestrian access to the new park from Kiowa Trail, Lake Riley Blvd, and the new
proposed development will be at the north end of Kiowa Trail. If Kiowa Trail becomes a
_ through street, all south bound traffic from the proposed development will pass this point, and
some of the north bound Kiowa Trail traffic will cross this point. If the access was for
pedestrians only(accept for emergency vehicles) using a "Greenway" system, there would be
almost no traffic crossing this point,making it safer for all concerned.
Please consider the above concerns when presenting your recommendations to the City
Council. We on the current Kiowa Trail are concerned for the safety of ourselves,and our
children,based on the current proposal being presented.
Since
inAtgra,
. .mie Heilicher
9280 Kiowa Trail
445-9661 (work)942-7828
RECEIVED.
. 1993
C/F . u,
L'r+.-. Y 17/y J5
.10/29/93 09:47 $612 337 5601 DSU, INC. 001;004
1)AH1 GREN
SHARDIDW
AND • UBAN
INCOT.PO
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
• TO: PoL1 1"vT ■ DATE: 10199 19 3
r+ ►.,,_ ►h6ss n • PROJECT: yfS 1� S
u' U7 w
•JOB NUMBER: 3-790
• WE ARE SENDING BY
D DELIVERY SERVICE 0 MAIL D OVERNIGHT COURIER XFAX # q5/ - 5/
• DESCRIPTION
fs nq
U PRINTS ❑ REPORTS 0 COPIES 0
J
• ITEMS
QTY. DATE DESCRIPTION 9.9-)11
°'° 1 ba.12,361 t 9Yen l ros ezposoi
• THESE ARE TRANSMITTED
C AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR YOUR USE ❑ FOR APPROVAL -
XFOR REVIEW AND COMMENT
• REMARKS
COPY TO: SIGNED: abIlieN WOOS)
J0/29/93 09:48 e612 337 5601 DSU, INC. I ]002/004
DAHLGRI�N
SHARDIOW
ANI) • UBAN
ORPOP
CONSULTING PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
SUITE 210
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
612.339 3300
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 28 October 1993
TO: Chanhassen City Staff
FROM: John Uban
RE: Rogers/Dolejsi Property, Lundgren Bros. Proposal
A number of concerns have been brought up by City staff concerning the proposed PUD for the
Rogers/Dolejsi property. We've been talking with Dave Hemple and following is a summary of our
adjustments and explanations raised to date.
1. City Engineering staff is requesting that the interior roads have a 60-foot right-of-way. We
have designed the roads to have a 50-foot right-of-way as part of the flexibility of the PUD .
The needed flexibility is not because of wooded areas, but because of the pressure placed on
the property for significant amount of land to be dedicated for other public purposes. The
property is encumbered also by a gas pipeline that runs diagonally through the western edge.
Additional right-of-way is being dedicated for State Highway 101 and for Lyman Boulevard;
specifically to adjust around wetlands which pushes the right-of-way further into the
Roger/Dolejsi parcel. Additionally, the land is being dedicated for Lake Riley Boulevard
which was not completely platted when developed. There is no proposed access from Lake
Riley Boulevard or Highway 101. Access will come from Lyman Boulevard. Additionally,
full complement of park dedication is being made to make the development of Bandimere
Park more cost efficient for the City. Much less grading will have to take place with the
additional land being dedicated. This is a distinct benefit to the community. Because of
this, we are trying to take full advantage of the property that is left for development and
create an efficient and attractive plan as possible. The 50-foot right-of-way is an integral
part of that design, and concerns about that were not known to us until just recently. We
believe that this adjustment allows the homes to be properly placed in a system with grading
and utilities within a 50-foot corridor and overall helping in the efficiency of that grading
and utility extension to individual homesites.
The City Planning Commission recently, on the Song parcel, in areas that were unwooded
requested a 60-foot right-of-way with a compensating 25-foot front yard setback. This keeps
the arrangement of lots and grading the same while allowing the legal setback line to move
inward 5 feet on either side of the road. The City staff's request for additional right-of-way
throughout the plat to make the roads all 60 feet in width affects a number of the lots in total
size, bringing an estimated five lots below the 11,000 square foot area calculation.
Additionally, we have intentionally created the largest lots around the perimeter of the
property to adjust to many varied conditions and constraints that exist on the site (pipelines,
10%29 '93 09:49 T2612 337 5601 DSU, INC. Z003/004
Chanhassen City Staff 28 October 1993 Page 2
roads, future development, etc.)This further speaks to the flexibility needed in the PUD to
be able to consolidate development in the interior as efficiently as possible. We propose to
continue with a 50-foot right-of-way with a 30-foot front yard setback for the interior street
with an 11,000 square foot lot size minimum.
2. City staff has raised some concerns on the details of the ponding and storm drainage plan
specifically for those ponds lying along the northern edge in common with the Lyman
Boulevard right-of-way. Lundgren Bros. will continue to work with City staff on the
development of an appropriate combined drainage system. We understand the City has not
yet finalized the road design for the upgrading of Lyman Boulevard and we will work
through our final plan development to organi7'the drainage system with City staff. We are
now making adjustments to the plan to show that the outlets from the ponds will flow along
Lyman Boulevard connecting the westerly ponds on through to the east and connecting to
the most easterly 15-inch culvert under Lyman Boulevard. We will adjust this basic concept
as is needed. Lundgren Bros. will work with City staff so that storage and ponding areas
will be kept primarily on the private property without severely encumbering the R.O.W.
3. At staff request, greater details of these plans are being submitted to the City for review.
The grading plan will be reprinted so it is easier to read the existing topographic lines.
Also, the scale of all of the drawings is 1' = 100' and will be corrected to show that.
4. The City prefers that the drainage pond outlot on the southeast side of the project be
changed with a different alignment. This may affect other property owners and Lundgren
Bros. will work with the City to develop this new alignment. Should difficulty arise and
this new alignment not be possible, and if the City elects to not use their right of eminent
domain, then Lundgren Bros. would wish to develop the outlot as proposed rather than
reach an impass delaying development.
5. The City is requesting access to Lake Riley Boulevard through the southeast cul-de-sac of
the Rogers/Dolejsi Property. There is no benefit to the Rogers/Dolejsi Property for this
connection nor any need. The development of the cul-de-sac creates lookout lots facing out
to the east and protects the edge of the property for the existing neighbors along Lake Riley.
Additional connection would only encourage additional traffic into both neighborhoods. This
additional connection would not enhance the health, safety and welfare of either
neighborhood.
Lundgren Bros. will provide a 10-foot trail easement to connect the Lake Riley Boulevard
neighborhood to the road system in the Rogers/Dolejsi project so that the Bandunere Park
may be more easily accessed by the area residents. This trail easement is proposed on Lot
14 of Block 5, adjacent to Lot 13.
6. The City is requesting an additional 10' R.O.W. dedication for Lake Riley Boulevard above
what has been proposed by Lundgren Bros. The City staff is looking for an additional 20
feet and we are proposing to complete a dedication for Lake Riley Boulevard to maintain a
50-foot right-of-way for that neighborhood street. As Lake Riley Boulevard intersects with
Lyman Boulevard, additional right-of-way has been shown as being dedicated by Lundgren
Bros. These additional requests clearly show the kind of pressure that is being placed on this
property to provide adequate right-of-way for permanent roads that do not directly serve this
project. Lundgren Bros. proposes to continue with the dedication with Lake Riley
Boulevard as proposed initially. Lake Riley Boulevard is presently a 40' R.O.W.
7. Parks - The applicant, in its negotiation with the Parks Director to dedicate 5.4 acres of land
for public purpose, understood that a complete waiver of park and trail fees would take
' 10/29,93 09:51 $612 337 5601 DSL', INC. 2004/004
Chanhassen City Staff 28 October 1993 Page 3
7. Parks -The applicant, in its negotiation with the Parks Director to dedicate 5.4 acres of land
for public purpose, understood that a complete waiver of park and trail fees would take
place. However, at the Parks Commission, the staff recommendation was to waive only the
park fees. The Parks Commission supported the Park Director's recommendation. The
applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission support the waiver of trail fees in
exchange for land dedication.
-yr1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 1993
Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Matt Ledvina and Diane
Harberts
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; and Sharmin
Al-Jaff, Planner I
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF
PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR A 232 UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHER 8, 10
OR 12 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY, SLAB ON GRADE
CONSTRUCTION WITH ATTACHED ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, GALPIN
BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMES, CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION
(BETTY O'SHAUGHNESSY).
Public Present:
Name Address
Marian Schmitz 8190 Galpin Blvd.
Tim Dempsey 8241 Galpin Blvd.
Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
Dan Blake Centex Real Estate Corporation
Paul Krauss, Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Scott called the public hearing to order.
Dan Blake: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Dan Blake.
I represent Centex Real Estate Corporation. As Paul said, we're really here for some
direction. There's been a lot of discussion on this site as we worked with staff earlier this
year on the road alignment of the frontage road and the park issue and we finally decided we
needed to just get a plan in so that we could start formalizing the process and where the city
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
wanted the park and where they want that road. And I think we've gotten awful close to
accomplishing that. I'd like to, a little bit of site information. Again, this is Highway 5 and
Galpin. Some of the natural features. A big wetland area...down here. Develop a piece of
high ground down at the bottom of our site which the park department has indicated it is their
desire for park acquisition of the part of the park system here... There are some areas of trees.
Generally lower quality wetland...type trees. Further down the wetland there are some trees
on this side of the knoll...If you go out there today, one of the most significant features is a
very high natural berm left when Highway 5 was cut with trees, evergreens on it now,
roughly in this location. It's the requested Highway 5 widening of right-of-way which
includes that tree line. I'm not exactly sure what impacts those trees are if you widen
Highway 5...I would guess that a portion of it may be lost...The buildings, this is an artist
rendition of the buildings. They are 12 unit townhouse buildings. 6 units on either side.
There's also 8 and 10 unit buildings which is the same building as some of the middle units.
Currently we're building this exact product in Eden Prairie and Apple Valley. We just last
year completed a project of a very similar building with the city of Mendota Heights so the
building design is pretty much established...our intent to build. Again the attached garages.
...and I think what that does for some of the concerns of the Highway 5 issue is provide some
varied exposures. I have a drawing back here and I can pull it up. It kind of cuts through
the site but it's awfully small. Given the scale of the site, it was hard to depict but we're
trying to show you, this being Galpin on this end. The western boundary of the site with the
varied impact of the trees and the building. This is the 3 buildings that you see here. Down
here and here and here. And then the big open existing wet meadow wetland and then some
of the existing forested wetland which is through here. That kind of shows you the general
look from Highway 5. I think that is one of, Paul referred to as a concern. I think it's just
kind of an unknown yet what that Highway 5 impacts. What exactly this is looking for and
what exactly this would look like. Another cuts through the site the other way. Shows
Highway 5 here. The existing tree room. The proposed right-of-way. Landscaping berm, the
parking drive and then the buildings so this kind of gives you a sense of the scale in relation
to Highway 5. I believe it's 265 feet from the edge of the building to the center line of
Highway 5. This would be the dimension from here to over there.
Mancino: Excuse me, is that a 2 lane Highway 5 or is that a 4 lane Highway 5?
Dan Blake: This is drawn as existing.
Mancino: As existing? Okay.
Ledvina: Where do the other 2 lanes go then on Highway 5? Do they go to the south?
Okay.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Harberts: What are your homes selling for in Apple Valley and Eden Prairie and Mendota
Heights?
Dan Blake: Eden Prairie the price ranges from the mid 70's to the mid 90's. Apple Valley's
a little less than that.
Scott: Can you plus or minus $10,000.00 estimate, given that development, can you estimate
what the sale prices would be for this particular project? Same range roughly?
Dan Blake: Same. Similar. Maybe a little further up than Eden Prairie. Maybe a little bit
less but a lot of the same site characteristics. It has a very prime view units. A lot of I'll
say secluded, privacy units. Not too many highway units... Beyond that I guess it'd be easier
for me to answer questions either now or as you see fit.
Scott: Okay. Any questions?
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, the report discusses, the staff report discusses the buildability of the
area in the vicinity of units 17 to 20. Have you done?
Dan Blake: We've done, we have brought engineering out to do soil borings on the site. We
did deep regular soil borings on this site but because of access, because you can't cross this
wetland, not very well. They just from the other side walked in and did some relatively deep
hand auger borings, in the 6 to 8 feet down range. The unsuitable soils range from 2 to 6
feet over in this area...half a foot of topsoil and sandy clays below that. We're not exactly
sure what our opinion is. Is it for sure buildable. It's buildable at some cost but that's
— exactly...too costly. I think as big of an issue this is going to be, the construction of this road
which the city I believe is important no matter what goes in here and they have agreed to
participate in the, at least the permitting process of getting that road across that wetland.
Harberts: A question for staff. What's the opportunity to try and focus some priorities for
affordable housing with this project? I just came from a governance committee and my
understanding is the Governor's putting together a blue ribbon task force to address housing.
Krauss: Well, I think as most of you are aware, the city has had a concern with affordability
of housing. We have broached the idea to a couple of developers. I guess we really don't
know what kind of flexibility we have at this point and we're having our bond counsels and
some other folks who work with us on financing issues put together what our financing
options are so we can go back intelligently and talk to developers. We're also having, we've
commissioned a study. Fred Hoisington is working with major employers in the community
and he's surveying their...to ascertain what the needs are for housing. What can they afford.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
What do they look for. What sort of incentive program is most useful to them. I think it's
fair to say that certainly as soon as we have our ducks in order, we'd sit down with this
developer. We've already talked about sitting down with another developer who's on later
tonight and trying to at least tinker with some of these units to make them a little more
affordable. I'm hoping that we move forward on that a little bit in the next month or so. I
believe there's an item on that for the HRA agenda tomorrow night.
Harberts: I think it's going to come to a point where if the cities do not take a lead in it, that
the government's going to force the issue in a way that's not going to be very positive for the
community and that's the message I basically got tonight at my meeting.
Krauss: Well they've kind of been hinting at that for quite a while. The problem is they
took away all the tools we had to do anything about it. You know we have to stretch the
envelope a little bit to do much of anything. We used to be able to sell mortgage revenue
bonds. Used to be able to do TIF districts for housing and they took that away and then they
complain that you're not building affordable housing in the suburbs. Well the fact is, we the
city don't build anything. We depend on the private sector to do it and they can't deliver it.
I think what you've got here tonight is a fairly reasonably affordable product.
Farmakes: The other thing that disturbs me is that the government has shown an abysmal
record over the past 30 years of doing a very good job of project housing. And I don't
believe that once you get outside the realm of market, and start dictating a large scale project
housing, that if the city approaches this, that it does so on an individual housing type basis.
Because otherwise I think that we're approaching a serious can of worms and I'm sure many
developers will tell you that. And what bothers me about this is government is never very
good at producing something that the private sector can for less at probably far more
efficiently targeted to the customer. That doesn't take away from staff but.
Krauss: Well we don't know what the options are but none of these options have been
explored, and frankly...government subsidized housing. The approach that we've been
looking at is to try to tinker with that offer for example of first time home buyer assistance.
People can often...but they may be stretched to meet the down payment and there are ways to
develop a small pot of money that over time allows people to get into those homes and it's
blind. I mean these are owner occupied homes. We won't know who's in them.
Farmakes: And I think that's more innovative. But as I said before, the tendency when you
ask how much are these houses going to cost, for information that' fine but to get into
dictating what that's going to be, that's a little worrisome to me anyway and the other thing
that bothers me, I don't believe that that's really going to solve the problem because what's
happening here, when we look at medium density profit housing, and...housing quite often the
4
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
assumption is well, that's affordable housing when in fact I think that the last year that
you've spent here you've seen that that's not the case. That in many cases this higher density
housing is up, in some cases up to the $200,000.00 range. So some of the other issues that
Paul had just talked about are not necessarily large scale development type situations but
issues of financing and so on, which I think are fine. And I support that.
Harberts: And Jeff, you're certainly correct with what you've shared but I think there's
some, and Paul's quite aware of some of the political perspectives. From inner city versus
suburban areas and basically when you get into housing, you get into that because they don't
care what market demand is out here.
Farmakes: And that's fine but what I would submit is that they're two separate divergent
interests there. And one was born out of the other and there is, we don't need to go over
metropolitan politics for the past 20 years but it is, Minneapolis and St. Paul have tried to not
only curtail the school system but also housing and it's to their advantage. And then they've
used their political clout to do that. And certainly from the southwest suburbs, we're new to
our political clout and we are I think doing a pretty good job anyway, finally of responding
but I don't want to use this forum for that. But I do have concerns about this and I've seen
this on occasion where we get to the higher density issues of trying to accomplish this.
There's nothing wrong I believe with single family housing and incorporating some of the
issues that you're talking about. There are some innovative programs that are being done
_ with that and curiously enough they're being done outside of the realm of government.
They're being done through religious non-profit organizations and they're being done with
philanthropic direction from architectural firms. And I think that that's far more efficient to
deal with it that way I think in the end. The homeowner is probably far more inclined to
take care of rather than rely on someone else to take care of their home and so on. And I do
think that again smaller is always better with that sort of thing. Than getting very large scale
_ developments and that's the sole purpose of it.
Scott: Okay. Any other comments. This is a public hearing so if there's anyone from the
general public that would like to speak. Please go up to the microphone and give us your
name and your address and we're interested in your comments on this particular project.
Tim Dempsey: Good evening. My name is Tim Dempsey. I live at 8241 Galpin Boulevard
and I have some questions that are not being addressed as far as I can see tonight. And
there's basically three so I won't take too much time. The one was what was brought up
earlier and that is, as I understood the zoning or the guidance with the Highway 5 corridor
was that this be low to medium density housing on this side. I don't understand why you
want to plan this higher density in an area that's kind of far away from the corp of city
services that should be offered for that kind of community development. ...people I think
5
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
would like to be closer to bus lines, shopping, and other things like that so my first question
when I saw this was, why not the northwest corner across from Target. That'd be a lot closer
in. Be a lot handier. That also brings me to my real concern and that is that that intersection
has been upgraded to support that kind of added traffic. On Galpin Blvd we are a corridor
and that's true for the industrial complex in back of us. There is a 48 unit housing
development on one side that's going in with another large development on the other side
that's going in. Right now if you try to gain access to Highway 5, either in the morning or
come at it in evening hours, it's quite tricky and those houses haven't even been built yet. I
don't know if I can show it on this but that intersection of Highway 5 is not quite blind but
it's not a very visible intersection and when there's a grain truck behind you and you're
turning left, there's traffic coming at you, that intersection of Hundertmark Road looks pretty
minor. So it's a very scary place. What my concern is is I have not heard anything about
either the widening of Galpin, putting turn lanes in so that people aren't lined up for half a
mile down the road. The development as shown, on almost all of the units and there may not
even be development on the other units closer to TH 41 but almost all the units are on the
Galpin side, which would indicate they'd probably use that as an egress to Highway 5. I
think as a safety issue, I don't see how you can advise planning of this type without some
kind of improvement to that intersection. Not only for me as a resident but for these other
people, these people who buy these houses, if they choose to. So for that reason as a local
resident...what are you going to do about the traffic problem. It's already bad. It's going to
be worst with the existing projects already in place and this one would really add to it. Thank
you.
Scott: Paul, do you want to take the density question and then we can probably talk about
the roads Dave.
Krauss: Well I think I touched on the comprehensive plan issue before. The comprehensive
plan was done based upon how this community would ultimately look when it was
completely developed. It was done with a community wide perspective. It was done with an
eye towards getting a variety of uses in the community so that there was balance in the
community. You're talking about a site and maybe...and I guess some of the Planning
Commission...with Highway 5. Just to the west of this is 170 acre industrial park. Industrial
office park. And to the south of that is all the industrial uses that Chaska developed along
Highway 41. So this is an area that's surrounded by intensive development. The north side
of Highway 5 is also ultimately going to be brought into the MUSA line and will be
developed. We've already received a petition to bring it in. We appreciate the fact that this
sort of housing often times has somewhat different access needs although I don't think it's
particular true in this case because it's an owner occupied. The need for immediate proximity
to downtown is not as great. However, that's why we're building these streets. To get
people to downtown. To schools. To recreation without having to go onto Highway 5 all the
6
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
time. Relative to, I guess I can leave the bus aspect to you but we've talked to Southwest
_ Metro about ultimately providing bus service on these parallel access boulevards because that
seems to be where the people can be and it's a much safer way of working it than running
down Highway 5. We also do have a...amount of medium and high density housing around
the central business district. Some of it's being filled right now up on a hill, just north, a
block north of Target there's 220 unit of townhouse there. The site which was mentioned,
there's a lot of people who would love to see medium density housing out there. In fact that's
what it's guided but it's also the site that's owned by Eckankar and it's being operated as a
church and it's not being developed. But it was developed, that's what it's being guided. We
share Mr. Dempsey's concern with the Galpin intersection. It is not a safe intersection.
There was a school bus accident there, I think it was last year or the year before. We're well
aware of that and I guess I'll pass it over to Dave to talk about what we have in the works
with that.
Harberts: Just one question Paul. What was the, I think the gentleman brought up about the
northwest corner on Kerber. Was it?
Krauss: That's the Eckankar site.
Tim Dempsey: I didn't realize all that was owned by them.
Harberts: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
Krauss: I'll be happy to get you a copy of the comp plan.
Harberts: Alright, thank you.
Mancino: Dave, could you talk about a stop light there on Galpin and Highway 5.
Hempel: As Paul mentioned it is a very hazardous intersection. We've had a few accidents
there. Trunk Highway 5 is under the jurisdiction of Minnesota Department of Transportation,
MnDot. Galpin Blvd is a county road. County Road 117. The City has been working with
the County on a joint cooperative program for the future upgrade of Galpin Blvd south of TH
5. With the recent residential subdivisions going in down there, it will warrant an upgrade.
The comprehensive plan that was prepared some time ago, the Eastern Carver County one
which has been used as a guide lately, or up until now I guess, dictates that it be a 4 lane
road at some point here. The other driving force behind this obviously the school site. That
will include turn lanes onto TH 5. A full intersection with a traffic signal on Galpin. It's my
understanding that the city and Carver County is petitioning MnDot to do a signal
justification report, which is the first step in order to get a traffic signal installed at the
7
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
intersection. So it is in the works for upgrading the intersection...as well as plans for
upgrading Galpin Blvd. Widening the turn lanes.
Mancino: Do you have any sense of timing on this?
Krauss: Well possibly. I mean we've been working with the school district, architects and,
as Dave pointed out, the County and MnDot and I was in a meeting with them last week
where it was pretty clear that concurrent with the development of the school, which is
opening in the fall of '95, that Galpin would be improved to a 4 lane status. I'm not, I mean
ultimately I don't think, the jury's still out about whether Galpin needs to be improved to 4
lanes. I mean I really shudder to think about that, south of that area. But it certainly needs
to be, have some of the kinks taken out of it and worked. But north of that area from the
intersection of the east/west collector up to Highway 5 now looks like it will be improved
concurrent with the opening of the school, and as Dave points out, we have begun talking to
MnDot about temporary signalization. One of the problems we're dealing with is the
Highway 5 upgrading was supposed to take place, I think in '95 not too long ago. But then
when the 5 cent gas tax was vetoed, everything started getting dominoed on back and now,
the last I heard, they're looking at 1998 maybe. But MnDot is also realizing that they have
very significant safety problems that they have to address well before that at TH 41, Galpin
and Audubon. So there will be something. We have every expectation that there will be
something in place concurrent with the opening of the school, which isn't too far out of
whack with when this development might come on line. And we should have a lot more
information on that certainly by next time this comes back on your agenda.
Scott: Okay. Mr. Dempsey, did those comments help your understanding?
Tim Dempsey: Yeah, but I'll stay tuned.
Scott: Okay. That's good. Yes ma'am.
Mary Schmitz: My name is Mary Schmitz and I live at 8190 Galpin and my concern is the
safety issue also. A high density area like you're talking, 232 units. You can anticipate at
least half of those have children and you're talking at least 100, maybe 200 children living in
this area. How are they going to get to the school across the street? Are they going to be
running back and forth? This began an issue with the Chaska school over at Highway 41.
They had that huge development, children are constantly running across Highway 41 where
there's no other way other than walking way down to the light, which they won't do, and
they're running across Highway 41. Again, I've lived there about 15 years and the traffic just
keeps increasing and increasing and increasing on that road. It's even a hazard for me to
walk across to get my mail and come back. I really have to be very alert and really watch
8
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
when I walk across. Now you're talking about 6 year olds and 7 year olds running across
Highway 41. Or Galpin Boulevard and I just have a concern that you're creating a hazard by
having that many children so close to a school district without some kind of control of how
those children are going to get back and forth. The buses are not going to go across to pick
them up. They're too close so what is this development going to do to solve that issue?
Scott: Are there any other comments? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public
hearing?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: One quick question before I give my comments. You're talking about information
yet to come. If we approve this concept, preliminary. They're basically looking for a
critique correct. We're not committing to anything here and I will refer to your
recommendation number 2. It's kind of saying they should have some additional forth
coming information such as so and so and it goes on. Should we be limiting the information
that we should have forth coming to that or should we leave that more open ended? It seems
to me that perhaps there's some additional traffic information here in coordination with the
school. There are other egg and chicken type information situations here that really kind of
need to look at the same time we're looking at development for that property and surrounding
properties. How they fit in together. At least that would be my, and I don't know if that
would be my consideration. I don't know. If the developer certainly is in a position to
provide us with that. They're talking. The County, we're talking School Board. We're
talking, do you feel that you have a handle forth coming on that information? How it will fit
up with this type of development?
Krauss: I think on the roadway issue specifically, that's out of the developer's hands. That's
really our responsibility to push and I think conveniently there's a lot in the works now to
make that happen and we should be able to get out information on that. In fact I think you're
going to see the preliminary plans for the upgrade of when...I think November 17th, you'll
see what it will look like at that point.
Farmakes: So we have some time lines converging here then?
Krauss: Right. And I think the developer made a good point that a lot of things aren't
resolved until somebody sticks their head up and people can take shots at it and come up with
some concerns. As far as in condition 2. Whether that's open ended or restricted, I'd
encourage you to be as forth coming with other things as you want to have information on so
that we have direction and the developer has direction. So if there are other areas, certainly
9
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
roadway issues and traffic are things that we totally to expect to have information on.
Farmakes: Okay. I would also, when you do get that information, is to have Public Safety
response to cross over situations. Children. How that would be affected to access
playgrounds and so on. At the school across the street. On the Highway 5 issue, or how this
fits into the Highway 5. I would like to see an assessment of that as well. How units 18, 1,
5 and 8 fit into what we're doing there. We spent really a considerable amount of time to the
north. What was happening to the north and not quite as much here to the south and it seems
a little ironic to me that the first development we get is of course to the south and not to the
north. But I guess that's to be expected. I like in general, I guess I should say, Centex. I
think that Centex, just to throw out a comment. I don't know whether it's appropriate or not
but I like your corporation. I like your developments. I think you did a nice job of Curry
Farms. This is a different division of your company but I think that they also provide quite
good value for the money in development. So I like seeing your corporation developing in
Chanhassen. Since this is a PUD, I for the life of me can't figure out how you do much else
with that piece of property. It's a difficult piece of property to develop. And I guess I would
like to see further information across the way on the developability of that property that they
sort of did hand auguring on. I'd like to get a response whether or not that is sufficient
information or that's sufficient engineering information for them to proceed or if they'll have
further information by the time we see this again. Getting back to the Highway 5 issue and
how the 1, 5 and 8 fit into buffering and how that fits into the goals that we set for that. I
wanted to define that a little bit more for you with buffering. I hope that we do not wind up
with a wall, a 2 mile wall on the south and north with nothing but higher density situations
where if we just see walls of that type of development. Similar to like what you see on 169
going north. There are occasions where you drive by and you see, you drive by for a mile
and you see nothing but that type of development. I'd like to see a little bit, if not different
kind of zone, at least more creative uses of berming and trees. Plantings. Otherwise I think
we're defeating. We certainly would be defeating it just to do it on the north and not do it
on the south at the same time. I would go back and support that we modify the
recommendations on 2 to expand. I would encourage anyone to bring in, that we add onto
that. Certainly the issue of the intersection and public safety and how this fits into the
Highway 5 goals. That's the end of my comments.
Mancino: Okay. Actually looking at that Jeff I can see where if you're going west, well
actually east or west on Highway 5, that at least you have that big open space of wetland so
that there will be some good viewing from Highway 5 to the south. The wetland will break
that up. Paul, has anybody talked to the three homeowners on that south side of the frontage
road that are to the east of this development? I mean as far as they're concerned. If I were a
landowner on Galpin, on that west side of Galpin and I saw the comprehensive plan and saw
that it was guided single family and then all of a sudden it's going, it may be changed to
10
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
medium density, have they been notified of this?
Krauss: Well they've certainly been notified.
Mancino: Have they been notified that there is a change that may be, the process may be
starting. That someone has come in and asked to put medium density.
Krauss: We're not actually, Commissioner Mancino it's not actually clear to us exactly
what's being changed. The guide plan has a presumption of road alignment for that east/west
road. The current alignment has shifted and you know to the point where it's kind of hard to
define exactly where that line will be. And now knowing what we know about the wetlands
here, there is no real, I mean we had anticipated and I remember when this came up in the
comprehensive plan. We knew there was extensive wetlands there but had some
understanding that there were areas of high ground where cul-de-sac...to the south were able
to be pulled in. We now know that area is entirely wetland and is forever protected from
development. So I think that the single family area, the low density area that we spoke about
in the plan, in all likelihood doesn't exist. But we can provide you with some additional
comparisons between.
Mancino: Well and I also think that the existing homeowners there should know that this,
because if I look here, the road went way up north and it would have had the medium density
area in a much smaller. It would have just, it would have been a much smaller area so I'm
just saying that I think these homeowners need to be able to respond to something that you'll
be changing around them.
Krauss: We can certainly do that.
Mancino: And I'd like to hear.
Krauss: I honestly don't know if people have been in contact with Kate or not. I know the
last contact I had with anyone were the calls I received quite some time ago so it wasn't
related to this issue.
Mancino: So none of them have been contacted on this particular issue?
Krauss: Other than the normal notice procedure, no. I don't believe so.
Mancino: Okay. I agree with Jeff on the concern about setbacks and just how Highway 5
and Galpin and all of this is going to relate and how it's going to be a safe area. That there
won't be a lot of noise. There won't be a lot of street lights, etc so I think a lot of attention
11
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
has to be paid to the landscaping and berming around the development. And any other, I
don't have any other thoughts. New ones other than what he said.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: I guess I would also agree with Jeff's comments. I think there's definitely some
safety concerns that we need to have addressed. Looking at recommendation number 2, I'm a
little concerned about the density and also the coverage, hard surface coverage. These units
along the north look pretty tight to me in terms of how they're laid out. But I understand
we're looking at a conceptual here but I just, and I know that's part of your evaluation but
that's a comment I'll make at this time. And I had a question for Dave. As it relates to the
driveways or the accesses off the proposed frontage road. Is that number of accesses
acceptable or how do you see that? Is that a problem?
Hempel: We always encourage to reduce access points where we can...and it's a question of
it being a collector frontage road like this.
Ledvina: I look at it, it doesn't look too bad on the east side but then on the west side, two
of those driveways are pretty tight in there but I don't know. I think there's actually 3
driveways there.
Krauss: Yeah. There's a total of 7 curb cuts and I think the...certainly willing to look at but
it's these 3 possibly right in here.
Ledvina: Right. That's just something that I noticed that I know it was an issue with one of
the other developments we're going to see tonight but if that could be revisited in terms of
safety. I guess other than that, I think this proposed development is certainly appropriate for
the site and I would support the conceptual from this point.
Scott: Okay. Diane.
Harberts: My comments have been shared. I guess mine were basically in the public safety
area. I noticed that the Fire Marshal noted the need for turn arounds. I think it was 14, 1
and 19. Dave, did you, did someone get a chance to maybe just look at that internal
circulation? When the Fire Marshal put his memo together, did he look at the internal
circulation to make sure that it was adequate for the vehicles and things like that?
Hempel: He did briefly look at it and we had some conversations. The driveway entrance,
the units on the south side of the frontage road, kind of in the east area. He was somewhat
concerned about that. I recommended that the loop sweep around the back of them and I
12
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
think that can be easily accomplished.
Harberts: I guess mine were just to reinforce the public safety issues, circulation. I think
they're nice homes. Nice units. I think it's going to be positive so.
Scott: Thank you. Mr. Blake, what is the future of the project if let's say that the high
ground where it looks like you've got 5 buildings slated. What if that's not profitable for you
do build those? Are you still planning on, or is that something that you're considering, or
what do you think is going to happen?
Dan Blake. That would certainly be a big factor in the doableness. I don't know if that's a
word or not.
Scott: It works.
Dan Blake: One of the things we've talked with Park staff at least about, and I think with a
little bit talked to the rest of the staff, especially when this was maybe going to be looked at
as park. If this didn't get built, does the park department want it? They were looking at this
entire wetland area as a park area. And if they did want it, would the city be interested,
would the city be able to justify constructing a road across here. This is, in my mind, the
most significant issue of this project which really has nothing to do with our project. It's
already been proclaimed that the road needs to get from here to here. So that issue stands no
matter what goes on this site. If we drew, it can be built. That's really not a question as
how expensive it is being built because we can do it, I believe we can do it within
regulations, and ...even necessarily as much of a planning issue as just a structural issue. But
if it's too costly then we need to look at how does that affect obviously the cost of the whole
project and the construction of this road through here. And sewer and water that go with it,
that really are to be serve a bigger area is a big factor. You know this project may work by
itself if it was just this piece and a road to here and that's something we looked at and I think
we'll continue to work with the staff...what's the best combination.
Scott: Okay. Well I support this. Approval of this conceptual plan so can I have a motion
please.
Dan Blake: Can I ask a question?
Scott: Sure.
Dan Blake: Pardon my ignorance but there's a lot of discussion about the Highway 5 impact
and I know the city's been looking at that for a long time. We're a little confused. I don't
13
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
know if when you talk about more creative berming and landscaping, if that was more
creative than what this plan here represents or if that means more creative than what's out on
169. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be trying to hide these buildings or make them more a
feature. I understand the objection, or I believe what I understand is that the city doesn't
want maybe a bunch of 3 story flat walled apartment buildings.
Farmakes: I think the first statement probably than the last. I would try to make, the typical
guideline I think are goals are set out, and Paul might be able to provide you with that.
Dan Blake: I think we have them.
Farmakes: I think the issue is to attempt to work that into the existing landscape and the
existing landscape in many people's minds, although it's subjective, is probably more the
wetland area than a development. People want to continue to see open areas, balanced areas
and a mix as they drive through. I believe that they do not want to see a parallel wall of a
single type of development covering it up just because it happens to be by the highway. I
think you get a certain type of development and certainly I think if we can get a mix of that
going on and some, as I say some creative hiding of some of these issues. Parking. Some of
the buildings themselves go a long way. This is not a huge development plan so I'm not.
Dan Blake: Right. I mean we're talking about 3 buildings and...facing ends to the highway.
The higher peak or the fronts, which have a little more character and that was kind of our
attempt to respond to the concerns of your staff.
Farmakes: I think also your particular development is one of the first in this particular area
that we've been discussing.
Dan Blake: I realize that. That's why it's a little bit hard to know exactly what...
Scott: Well if you hide them, that's probably a good two word description of what Highway
5 task force is looking for.
Mancino: Well yeah, not only from the Highway 5 perspective but from the homeowner's
perspective too. We don't want to be looking onto this huge highway and having traffic
noise and lights and everything else and the safety issues if there were children.
Farmakes: Although we've been working on this now for, what is it? Going on 2 years now.
We have yet to finalize but we're in the process of doing that now. Where those
requirements are going so lead time may still be a bit out but I think that there's a relative
14
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
concurrence at least for the most part as to what would be good to see inbetween Powers
Boulevard and Highway 41. Highway 5 so, and I don't think that this is counter productive.
I just would like to see us refine that more as to where those buildings meet up with the
highway. And I see that as additional information to come so I personally have no problems
with this and I'd entertain any motion. If somebody wants to do it other than modifying 2. I
would fully support staff's recommendation.
Scott: Okay. If someone wants to take a whack at a motion.
Ledvina: I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approval of the conceptual planned unit development #93-5. The applicant being
Centex Real Estate Corporation subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with
modification to condition number 2 to read, the applicant shall submit additional information
and more detail on issues such as tree inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance
with Highway 5 goals, traffic considerations for the Highway 5/Galpin Boulevard
intersection, public safety issues as it relates to increased traffic on Galpin Boulevard and the
proposed frontage road. Also, as it relates to density and impervious surface ratio.
Mancino: Second.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Conceptual PUD #93-5 subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant should confirm soil conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to
preliminary plat submittal.
2. The applicant shall submit additional information and more detail on issues such as tree
inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance with Highway 5 goals, traffic
considerations for the Highway 5/Galpin Boulevard intersection, public safety issues
as it relates to increased traffic on Galpin Boulevard and the proposed frontage
road. Also, as it relates to density and impervious surface ratio.
3. The area to be mitigated should be designed with areas of deeper pockets to trap
_ additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a result of the development.
The mitigated areas should also have diverse contouring to allow for the establishment
of different vegetative zones. The storm water pond must meet NURP standards. A
buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by
the city with an additional structure setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet.
4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be considered along Galpin
15
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping.
5. The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of
trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they desire service by next summer.
6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet State Aid standards.
7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10
year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet the City's
water quality standards (NURP).
8. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions stipulated in
the development contract.
9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993.
10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27,
1993.
11. Compliance with the PUD and Highway 5 Design Standards and respond to other issues
raised in the staff report.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY (190
DWELLING UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62.05
ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND A2 AND VACATION OF A PORTION
OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT
86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Public Present:
Name Address
16
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Dick Putnam Tandem Properties
Don Jenson Rottlund Homes
Greg Pskekke Westwood Professional Services
Dennis Marhula Westwood Professional Services
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Greg Blaufuss 7116 Utica Lane
Dave Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle
David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle
Jo and Mike Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle
Bob Armstrong 8400 Great Plains Blvd.
Mark Jesberg 8407 Great Plains Blvd.
Jo Larson 8590 Tigua Circle
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Scott called the public
hearing to order.
Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Putnam. One of the partners in Tandem
Properties. Don Jenson from Rottlund Homes is here this evening and can explain a little bit
about the unit types, particularly the new townhouse version that's been added to the plan.
Greg Pksekke and Dennis Marhula are here also from Westwood Engineering if there's any
technical questions. Al Klingelhutz who's one of the underlying owners of the property is
here also and would be the owner that retains the commercial site. I think to make my
presentation go fairly quickly, because I think the staff report highlighted a number of things.
What I'd like to do, if I could, is point out to you briefly the changes between the first site
plan, which is right here, and the second one. It's sort of the good news, bad news joke.
The good news is, we've made a number of the changes. I think we've improved the plan
dramatically. The bad news is, we have more units. And someone asked, well how do you
do that? Is it a slight of hand or smoke and mirrors? What it is is looking at the boundaries
of the site. Unlike most sites that you have that can't expand and contract. Because we have
a freeway on our south side and TH 101, or the proposed new TH 101 on our west side, and
86th Street can move because it's going to be relocated, we have the luxury of I guess
efficiently moving some boundary lines around a little bit to work. That plus adding a third
unit type in the townhouses allowed us to utilize the site much better than before. If you
noticed before there were a number of, because of the way the buildings laid in there
geometrically. If you think of using a square peg in a round hole, that's sort of the situation.
Whereas this one, by changing the buildings and using different types, we were able to make
it work a little bit better. If I could just start and sort of refer to the letter of October 4th that
we had written. The changes, let's take the road changes first of all. 86th Street in the
previous plan looked like it was into the wetland area. This one has been moved and the
sidewalks so there will be no construction in the wetland area...to the north. Highway 101.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
What was shown in the original plan was a 250 right-of-way in width. And this curve right
here, on the commercial area was of a particular degree. What this plan reflects is a 200 foot
right-of-way for TH 101, leaving a 50 foot buffer strip from the existing right-of-way and 150
foot for the new roadway. In talking with the engineering staff and with Mr. Hoisington, that
dimension works. The reason it was 250 before was to take in slope easement and
construction. Well, we'll be doing that before the road is built so that wasn't necessary.
Also the curve in this location has been changed slightly on the commercial and actually it's
straight now for a distance coming up from the intersection. Rather than starting a curve like
you see here. And then the curve proceeds up this way. Another thing that was done is the
access we believe to the commercial site was greatly improved, both from the city's
standpoint and also for the property owner Mr. Klingelhutz. We've added an in/out about
halfway between freeway ramps and 86th Street. Mr. Klingelhutz has reviewed that I believe
with the staff and also with the State Highway Department and that's acceptable to them.
Likewise we moved the access into the commercial area off of 86th Street. Before it was
pulled way back and shared the access with the residential street. It's not been moved up to
this location and has it's own access point in. One of the things that was brought up in the
staff report before was that in the original plan they weren't sure that there was enough right-
of-way and room for additional turn lanes if they were necessary because the commercial in
this one which we're showing is a 80 foot right-of-way to the commercial entrance and then a
60 foot that goes down to Tigua and the balance of the property. The 80 foot would allow
more than adequate spacing for the turn lanes that may or may not be needed. Internally the
road system, before there was a central loop that you see on the north side and a loop on the
south side. That has been retained but we've done it in a little different manner. The street
that runs to the north, and we'll just call it our new residential street, was pulled over slightly.
Anywhere from 25 to 40 feet to make the lots adjacent to the 3 lots along Tigua deeper and
allow us, at the last meeting the suggestion was made that we should look at using a 20,000
square foot lot instead of a 15,000 square foot adjacent to the existing home. We've done
that we, in the process, took one lot out of here and one lot out of this area and these lots
will now be 20,000 square feet. Also relative to that we had conversations with a couple of
the homeowners there that expressed some concerns about the way the single family worked
with it and maybe if I could just quickly use the overhead. This is just a plat of the Tigua
Lane area and then approximately how our road system coming off of 86th Street going north
would fit in with that. One of the issues that was raised was would it make more sense for
these 3 homeowners to bring the north/south street over to their boundary line as a buffer or
separation with their homes. And possibly the opportunity to subdivide if we needed to in the
future. I discussed that with two of the owners. I think the conclusion was that maybe that
wasn't as good an idea as it sounded so instead what was discussed with one of the owners
and if all would like, is really putting in a low security fence like a chain link fence, 4 foot
tall or whatever, that really defines their property and keeps the trespass issue out. It
wouldn't be something that sticks out. Do it out of the black material so it doesn't stick out
18
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
and would provide that separation. I think the issue of bringing the road over though, I'm
assuming at least was sort of resolved and probably didn't make a whole lot of sense. With
that, if you see, just an excerpt of the comprehensive plan. This north/south street is right
here. This is Tigua. The intent of that is to connect back over to TH 101 through the
adjacent parcel and that's something that can work and happen. Presently we just have a
temporary cul-de-sac there and in the future it could be extended by that property owner.
One of the things, and I might just as well jump forward here. One of the beauties of your
concept stage is we can make changes real quickly. As the staff had discussed, in the villa
home area it was brought to our attention that because it was medium density, the 30% site
coverage was required. We looked at that. Also I had a conversation with the property
owner adjacent to us here about eliminating a driveway that was proposed here and here and
said we could do that and that would allow a berm to wrap around that area. What, in just
talking with the staff in the last day actually, and dealing with the site coverage issue. What
I guess we would propose to do is a couple things. It solves a couple issues that were raised.
The Larsons that live here had a concern just what their view as of the units that were there.
What we did is pulled out the 8 unit villa home and we took out a 8 unit villa home here
also. Again, by adding the townhouses which Don Jenson will talk about a little bit, it's
given us a lot of flexibility to mix very compatible housing types that are all different sizes
and shapes. That allows us I think to do some things. So what this shows is two 4 unit
townhouse buildings here with an access off of the internal street and then one 4 unit building
here, access off the internal street. That opens up an area that's about half the size of a
football field as part of an open space area and allows the trail connection through this
location to go into the land adjacent to us that may be city park in the future and continues
that trail out of this open space area and the center of the site with totlot and benches and
picnic area. That would reduce the density from 144 units total to 136 and would bring this
area into that 8 unit medium density category and would meet that intent. I think it also, it
improves the plan. I mean there's no question. I again adds more open space around the
pond and then the marsh that's there and puts the townhouse units up a little bit closer.
Getting into the changes in the plan itself and I think they're quite numerous when you look
at them. The comments were made at the previous meeting, that were very valid, that 86th
Street was functioning as a driveway for these multi-family buildings by having driveways
going out to it. There's really no way to do much screening or softening of those buildings
with that kind of a plan. So we turned around and in fact changed the whole idea of it.
Oriented everything internal on both sites and were able to have the berming and landscaping
along both TH 212 and Highway 101 which were proposed before. But also extend that now
with a combination of ponds and berms, landscaped, what have you, along both sides of 86th
Street. With the ends of the buildings in most cases adjacent to the road. Here there's the
townhouse units and here. It should present really a very nice boulevard entrance road. And
I guess we felt that that was a good criticism of the previous plan that we could work to
alleviate. And I think that's done a pretty good job of that. The same thing holds true to TH
19
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
101. The buildings in this location again are end loaded to TH 101 with the berm so that you
get what I think will be a nice boulevard appearance. The wetlands provide, that are adjacent
to 86th now, provide just a real nice separation and something the units can orient to. And if
you retain that and make it an asset to the site, it should be real positive. One of the things
that we also tried to do was to reduce the number of the larger buildings. I think in here it
talks about the percentages but for example on the north side of the road there were 5 of the
8 unit buildings, or the larger buildings and let's see, 5 of the smaller, 4 unit buildings. What
we've done with this plan is reduced the number of the large buildings to 2 and increased the
number of the smaller buildings, the 4 unit buildings, 10 of those versus 2. So we've broken
down the large number of buildings and made them smaller buildings. Likewise we've done
the same thing on the south site. If I get this right, I think there are four 12 unit buildings
now. The 8 unit buildings are these and then we've added now it would be, I should count
these. 32 townhouse units. I think we just increase that by doing this. 38. So there's
slightly more of those. I think when, I'll ask Don to maybe explain to you briefly what that
unit looks like and how it works. It allows us to do some things that we weren't able to do
with the larger buildings on this site just because of the tightness. Sandwiched between the
freeway and the pond and the pond and the commercial area. All of that allowed us to really
I think do a better job of site planning. The commercial area, I believe that staff has met
with Mr. Klingelhutz and I think they have a meeting of the minds as to what is actually
envisioned on this site. It's a waiting game for all of us to see when 212 is actually
scheduled. When 101 is improved in those areas and I think he's certainly amenable to
waiting to have that occur. In the meantime the wetland that is located right in this area,
which was the one referred to that was being filled, we aren't filling it. Neither is Mr.
Klingelhutz. The only way that's really going to be filled is if 101 goes through it and that
won't be us doing it so we're not mitigating a wetland because we aren't filling it. Our
construction won't do anything to that at this point. In fact it's a good way to tell where 86th
Street will come in in the future if you go out and look at where that little depression is. 86th
today the intersection is way down here so the new one's up here. I guess at this point I'd be
happy to answer any questions that you might have. Or entertain any suggestions before I
turn it over to Don to just briefly show you the new units.
Harberts: I have a question for staff. Paul can you, the park and ride lot that's mapped on
101 and 212, is that just south of that outlot?
Krauss: It's on the south side of the highway. If you imagine a clover leaf interchange, this
is the northeast quadrant. The park and ride is in the southeast.
Harberts: I think it's mapped for what, 200 cars?
Krauss: I honestly don't know the size. That sounds about right. It's honestly in a state of
20
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
flux. MnDot's got a few designs that they're trying to work out with Jim Curry who owns
the property.
Harberts: Okay, thanks.
Mancino: Sharmin where is the, on Block 3, Lot 3 to the west of that is this lot that's
already here with an existing home. What's the access to that home? It's on the north side
of, do you see where I mean?
Al-Jaff: Where the horse farm is?
Mancino: Yeah.
Al-Jaff: It's off of 101.
•
Mancino: It is off of 101, okay.
Farmakes: The trails that you have showing are on there that show up in the...is that, who's
going to be maintaining those? Is that part of the developed project or is that?
Al-Jaff: Homeowners Association.
Farmakes: Okay. So that's not a park issue?
Al-Jaff: No.
Dick Putnam: The only trails that fall into the public I guess would be the one along 86th
Street and then the one going north on the new north/south street. And whatever happens if
that parkland develops to the east of us.
Mancino: Another question about that. Well first about, is there enough parking? Excess
parking for this plan as it exist? I mean I don't see a lot of extra parking. Do we know if
we're close?
Dick Putnam: We'll meet or exceed your ordinance because a number of these units have 2
car garages.
Al-Jaff: And then there is off, on the street parking as well.
Dick Putnam: That's what these little perpendicular stalls that you see kind of scattered
21
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
around indicate, is the off street parking.
Mancino: Thank you.
Dick Putnam: Guest. Those are actually the guest spaces as opposed to the garage and the
space in front. Let me ask Don to real quickly explain to you the difference in the townhouse
units that they develop.
Don Jenson: Don Jenson with the Rottlund Company. What we passed out in the folder is
our latest newsletter which came out since our last meeting. It highlights the project that we
have in Inver Grove Heights where this particular product that we're also utilizing on this site
was first introduced for us. We did see a need for it. Rottlund did come up with a blend of
the back to back that still worked with our villa line of housing and that's what the villa
townhome has done. Both in the Mission Hills as well as other neighborhoods. The garden
home itself, which is what we feel is a strong replacement for a housing need, is also profiled
in the newsletter in the center. And then we had a graphic that was highlighted which
showed really the scale of the end elevation, the side elevation if you will, from the villa
building in the back to back form. The garden home which is still back to back design and
the single family which of course is all part of this master plan. In response to the Planning
Commission and in response also to some of the neighborhood, there was a question of well,
shouldn't we have a slightly more different mix here and we were a little bit concerned of
trying to make sure we could reach a wide spectrum of potential buyers. So we agreed that
we would see how well this particular product works. It's not been built yet. It is one that
we hope will be well received in the marketplace. It is the, it provides if you will then four
different unit size types. We still have within the back to back villa design and these
locations through here. Units that are a little bit over 1,050 square feet in the interior home
and about 1,080 square feet in the end home. One car garage, two car garages. When we go
with the buildings that are being called the villa townhome in this plan, they jump up about
another 1,000 square feet apiece so that the interior dwelling unit, which still has a one car
garage, is about 1,185 square feet as it starts out and we're up to about 1,250 square feet on
the end home again with a two car garage. So instead of having one or the either building
type, trying to reach both markets, what we're able to do is have 4 different interior floor
plans. The added benefit that we get with this particular building, from a planning
perspective is that we then turn the patios to the flip side of the building so instead of back to
back, which has a back wall, we then have a facade on the outside. That of course increases
the obvious price of the dwelling itself but we felt with some of the amenities that we had on
this particular site, both with the wetlands to the east as well the center wetland here.
Minimizing the amount of impervious surface, separating the driveways...done to the site plan
and the locations and the main entry points through here as well as our ability to buffer and
22
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
deal with some of the dimensional constraints that we had, is that it provided an excellent
opportunity for the front facades on the internal streets match. That was our intent and goal
so that driving through there's not a perception of a great deal of difference between the
dwelling units. Once you get inside, the buyers have a reasonable choice and what we have
with that mix at this revised total of 132 dwelling units, is we still have close to 100 of our
back to back buildings. Roughly 92 if my math was correct. And we still have about 48 of
this new villa townhome. So there's going to be, instead of a price gap, which is really
relative to land use but everybody always ask, it's going to create about 4 different tiers of
pricing for us and I think that that's what allows this to be in the neighborhood and still be a
real comfortable mix as far as we're concerned as the builder and that we would be able to
have success in moving through the neighborhood and getting it completed in a reasonable
time frame. The one element that is missing in terms of a unit mix, on the north the site plan
is benefitted by looking at the majority of the end units is that we're not able to bring as
many one car garages in the garden home plan forward and we'll have to look at another site
in order to accomplish that. Our buyer that we're looking for for that particular product with
the one car garage is really widower or a widow, someone who's never married. They're
really pretty set. It's an older buyer and there's not really a need to force a 2 car garage onto
those particular segment of the population. It's not necessary and price is real important to
people as they're downsizing. Regardless, I think it's a good chance for us to bring a new
product. We did, as we mentioned last time, find that about 10% to 15% of all the buyers
that came to any given neighborhood of our villas, which would be on what we're having on
the south, were people of a little bit older age bracket and primarily they were buying on
price. They wanted the newer bathroom facilities. Newer kitchen facilities. They wanted to
make sure they had a...priced home under $100,000.00. In most cases under $80,000.00.
They wanted the maintenance done for themselves. They didn't want to shovel snow or take
care of the lawn. Any of that anymore. I'm sure Centex plans the same thing. And so what
we were able to do with the garden home is stay within that square footage total and
hopefully...building products pricing in line with that so the people could get one level living,
rather than two level living, and that's the whole reason for the garden home being created at
Rottlund. So I guess that highlights our changes. Of course the scale of this building on the
villa townhome. It's narrower. It's really not a whole lot different than single family home
in it's overall width. The overall height...about 35 feet. Not a whole lot different than a two
story walkout type home from the back. Patio's on the back side looking at the amenities to
the site. Interior floor plans. Four different ones for this particular unit. We do have the
other elevations behind here if you wanted to be reminded of it but we had the photograph of
the back to back in the packet there that we used previously and how well this happens to fit
with it. This does have a little bit more of the gable ends which was a focus for some folks
as to what the exterior facades ought to be.
Scott: Any comments from the Planning Commission?
23
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Farmakes: Can we be brought up to speed again on park commitment in relationship to the
park? I believe the park issue was forfeited in this case, correct? Not forfeited but, could
you just go over that again where that stands currently.
Al-Jaff: When the Park and Recreation Commission looked at this, they said yes. This area
is park deficient. However, the area east of Mission Hills is designated for future park and
they didn't see any need to take any parkland on this specific site.
Mancino: I think we were the ones that requested some sort of an amenity.
Farmakes: I like what happened down, I'll save that for my comments.
Krauss: The Park Board also did request that there were some private recreational facilities
added and that's been addressed.
Scott: Okay. This is a public hearing so if there are members of the general public who
would like to ask questions, please come forward. State your name and your address in the
microphone and ask away. Or comment away.
Bob Armstrong: My name is Bob Armstrong. I live at 8400 Great Plains Boulevard and I
was wondering what, I'd like to talk specifically about the north side of this project that
comes up to TH 101. I was wondering how it was decided to put this 200 feet from the old
Highway 101.
Scott: I guess my thought is that's just the recommended route of the new, yet to be built,
Highway 101.
Krauss: Well, yeah. I mean we're in a position of MnDot isn't as far along as the city or as
individual property owners are and we worked with MnDot to do an analysis of where TH
101 should be. It was completed 4 1/2 years ago, 5 years ago. We're currently in the
process of updating that a little bit and we worked with MnDot in the intervening years to
refine the interchange design which kind of orients everything. And what this project is
based upon the current...of MnDot's current design status of...which is the one that's going
through the EIS and this is where they're at right now. This is what they plan to do. And to
an extent the way development occurs along there is going to tell MnDot, or whoever builds
TH 101, this is where it's going to be. We don't have a quarter mile on either side.
Bob Armstrong: And that's kind of where I was getting at. About 4 1/2 years ago we
decided, through one of these processes, that Highway 101, the new alignment was going to
go farther east. This project now has pushed it north.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Krauss: This project isn't pushing anything anywhere but what changed in the intervening
years is when MnDot was aligned, was doing final design. Final preliminary design, or
whatever MnDot calls it, for the interchange, they changed the orientation of it a little bit and
it's the alignment of how TH 101 crosses the 212 corridor and how the off ramps connect
onto those.
Bob Armstrong: You're saying you have a better curves and accesses to 212? Is that why
this is being pushed this way?
Krauss: In part. They refine how the ramps were coming off of 212. They refined how
intersections would occur with 86th Street and would eliminate Lake Susan Hills and it
basically reoriented the interchange by a few degrees. Where the roadway goes from that
point or north of 86th Street up to what we built last year down by the creek, that's open to
some analysis right now. We've got four alternatives on the board that we're looking at, any
of which can be built in what's being proposed here.
Bob Armstrong: This project here doesn't give any of those 4 alternatives. This cuts you
down to 1. There is no alternative if this thing goes through the way it is. To 101.
Krauss: No, I don't think that's true. We've had, Fred Hoisington is working on developing
those 4 alternatives for us as is planned and has dealt with us on that.
Bob Armstrong: And I could be wrong but I think that this thing only lets you come, you
know when you're saying we're not going to be doing the wetland. Originally that road was
going to go between those two pieces of wetland. Now you're forcing the road to go through
that wetland and these houses are being taken another 50 feet away than I am and reduce that
...by warrant. And here's another vicarious little problem. There are two people that are
going to lose their homes because of this deal. If this road now is pushed over that way. At
least.
Krauss: No, that's not the case. Well, they may in fact lose their homes...
Bob Armstrong: Then what are you going to say to those people? Why are they losing their
homes?
Krauss: They may in fact lose their homes depending on which alignment is taken. They're
considerably north of here and where this is being shown over here has no bearing and you
could still pick any of the 4 alternatives that are being looked at. It's just a matter of bending
back to the west and getting onto the original alignment or the existing 101 alignment or the
25
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
other two alternatives that are being looked at. This alternative, this development is not
limiting those choices at all.
Scott: Paul, would it be appropriate, at least my understanding is that MnDot is basically
going to call the shots for the location of and foot the bill for the portion of 101 that goes
from the 212/101 interchange up to 86th.
Krauss: That's correct.
Scott: And then what happens after that, we're obviously trying to partner with them. We
don't know. The city of Chanhassen may have to pay for it.
Krauss: We're trying to put the city, as residents, in the driver's seat of deciding where the
city thinks it's going to go because I think what's going to happen is MnDot's going to punt
on it and it's largely going to be a local decision.
Scott: Yeah. And that's because even though it's called State Highway 101, the State of
Minnesota considers it to be a temporary highway, is that the?
Krauss: Since 1934.
Scott: Yeah, so it's not something that they want to have responsibility for so that's why it
puts us in kind of a strange situation as far as funding and siting and locating the section
north of 86th. Or where 86th will now be.
Krauss: The intent or the crux of the question, this is not limiting our alternatives but we can
certainly provide that information when this comes back again. We'll overlay the
alternatives. In fact we're trying to have some additional meetings with the neighborhood on
that with Fred Hoisington so that's in the process too.
Bob Armstrong: Then I guess that's my point. I would really like to see how, what this does
to your options for 101 and you've got it down to a pretty tight corridor there towards that
industrial complex.
Scott: In looking at it, it looks like there's about, and I'm just going to eyeball it here. It
looks like there's about 700 feet from the intersection of 86th Street to the northern border of
the project and I, perhaps the folks from Tandem can correct me. I'm just kind of eye
balling. Say there's a 200 foot easement for the highway. So that's a relatively small
section when you consider what's going to be happening north of that.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Bob Armstrong: And again I would really like you to take and consider, to really understand
where and how 101 would look going through there and if you let this parkway go through,
you've got...you don't have very many choices the way I see it. And we can see an overlay.
I'd be happy too.
Krauss: We can certainly provide that. There's one that's not really reproducible. It's in the
staff report and we can certainly...to the gentleman right now. But this does not limit the
option.
Bob Armstrong: Okay.
Scott: Is there anybody else who'd like to comment?
Dave Nickolay: My name is Dave Nickolay. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle and I'd first of all
like to ask the commission members if you've received the letters that I directed to you?
Scott: One is a hand written, 4 page.
Dave Nickolay: I've directed 3 letters to you...came before you on August 18th and you had
a letter at that time. And then we were rescheduled, I directed a letter to you at the meeting
in September.
Scott: In our packet we have one letter dated September 13th, but that's from, it looks like a
David Nagel. And then there's a second letter dated September 12th that is from, I guess you
and Sharon. And then we received via mail a letter also. So I guess we've received two
letters from you.
Dave Nickolay: And I faxed a letter to Sharmin and asked her to distribute that letter dated
October 17th.
Scott: Is that the one that was mailed to us?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Scott: Okay.
Dave Nickolay: I just wanted to make sure that you have those. And before I get started to
address, which I think I addressed in all three letters to you, which I believe are consistent
and I haven't changed my position since I came before you before. I just want to respond to
27
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
a discussion I had with Sharmin on Monday. In all the letters I've requested a written
response to my concerns and questions and it wasn't until Monday that in talking to Sharmin
that I discovered that that's not staff's position to respond in writing when someone like
myself requests that so I've asked her, so it isn't her fault in terms of the way I've restated
my last letter to you, which was a little bit stronger, who's supposed to be representing me?
A resident of Chanhassen. I was not getting my questions answered by the city, okay? I've
talked to Sharmin about that and she's going to address some of those issues, or direct other
members of staff that I would like a written response to the issues that I've raised in the
letters. She faxed me a copy of the staff report on Monday. I spent Monday evening reading
that and that was the first time, and that's maybe my naivety in this whole process, that I
really started to understand the magnitude and the scope of this. Before that I'm dealing with
public notices that are very sketchy. We don't know if we're talking about 190 units. Are
we talking about 216 units? We're piecing this thing on the fly so it's very difficult for me
to keep track of this. And so I'm asking staff and also for your cooperation. I'd like to get
some written responses to the questions and issues that I've raised. And I've not talked to
Mr. Putnam and the developers because up to this point I don't think the issues that I'm
raising have to do with the developer. I'd rather work with the staff and the Planning
Commission and if as a result of the actions that you take you direct us to work as neighbors
here with the developer and staff, I'm more than willing to do that so I'd just like to start out
with those opening comments. I've seen I think 5 different points in the recent letter to you
and it should be consistent with the points I made originally. The first point, and I'm going
to go through these real quickly so I appreciate your time and...in the letter. The type of
proposed development here, the density, the high density aspect of this is a major concern to
me. I have the largest piece of property that borders this development and the future, that
they extend the road that they just showed us here. I have 4 1/2 acres and I still feel, which
is under my point number 2 in my letter, that there is an inadequate transition plan from the
size property that I have and I'll let my neighbors speak for themselves in terms of their
properties. The removal of one lot down from 8 to 7 I think it is, is not in my mind adequate
transition plan. A fence is, that's okay but we'll talk about the fence issues in the future.
We're not talking about the real issue here and the real issue here is when I purchased my
property 12 years ago and when I attended the hearings when the comprehensive plan was
changing, I did not have a vision or was I led to believe that this type of high density would
be put in such a small area. We're 7 units. We have the capacity for 8 units on 40 acres and
your report is detail enough. You can look at how many acres you're talking about here and
how many units are going onto this. That still continues to be a major concern that I have.
My point number 3, I disagree with the Park's recommendation. For the size of this
development and the number of people that are going to be here, and the uncertainty of that
future park east of Rice Marsh Lake, the current path system that will go down on the south
side of West 86th Street is going to make and push all those people down onto Tigua Circle.
We're a dead end cul-de-sac. Where are those people going to go? They're going to end up
28
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
having, because of the discontinuation of the park trail with no plan for the future, there's
nowhere for them to go but down into our neighborhood. And yes, I can live with a few
neighbors. I can't live with 216 neighbors. The number of people that will be in these units.
My fourth point is a large portion of this proposed development is the, what I'm viewing as a
buffer against the new Highway 212. It's on the news tonight as I'm coming home, unless
the Governor and the legislature gets together on the gas tax, there is not going to be a new
Highway 212 for anywhere in the near future. And so that highway is a long ways from
being built and I'm really discouraged what I just heard here a few minutes ago in terms of
the fellow that was up here before me. That the developers are going to drive where the
highways are located. I think that's backward. That's what I thought 1 just heard. Maybe I
heard wrong. But whether it's Highway 101 or Highway 212, that's a concern that I have.
Something that I just discovered tonight as I was listening to the report. The buffer that is
supposedly being provided between our three lots that border this and the Rice Lake Manor
development and the 7 lots, were extended to 20,000 square feet. Well, were they extended
to 20,000 square feet because of the sidewalk that is part of some trail that I have never heard
of. I've not seen plotted anywhere. So were they extended from 15,000 to 20,000 because of
the trail or were they extended to appease us in terms of some transitional plan? I'm unclear
on that. My final point is the current Highway 101 is totally inadequate to handle this kind
of traffic. How are we going to turn off of 101 with this many people or gain access onto
Highway 101 in it's current form? I can see in the future when it's upgraded, we have turn
lanes, we have signal lights or whatever but in it's current form, just simply realigning West
86th Street and extending it into 101 is not going to be a solution. Beyond that I guess I'm
looking to the Planning Commission to represent us the current owners of property that are
directly adjacent to this development and to do what you view is right. I strongly feel that
this is not the right use for this type of land. It wasn't what I had envisioned when I
originally built there. But I ask your cooperation in terms of looking at those of us that are
there and the whole complexity of this project. We're literally going to be boxed in and I
strongly feel that that changes the whole complexity of what Rice Marsh Lake was originally
plotted for. We're just putting down another development next to a development that's
already there and they do not look alike in any form or fashion. So I guess we'll take...from
the last commission meeting. I wasn't specific about what I was to ask for. I'm asking you
to deny this request. It still has a lot of work to be done. I know understand the difference
between a, what is this called again? The plan. It's called a concept plan. I found out on
Monday that a concept plan is just that. You look at a concept and you either approve it or
disapprove it. Make the changes to it. It goes to the Council and then I understand you start
all over again. We come back before you again. Monday was the first time I found that out
so I'm struggling with this. I'm trying to figure it out and understand it and I'm asking your
cooperation in helping us deal with the issues that we've raised. So with that I want to thank
you for your attention.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Scott: Good.
Mancino: Should we have staff address some of those?
Scott: Yeah. I was just going to say.. First question was the density as proposed being too
high. I think Sharmin, in your staff report you addressed the, it looks like we have three
different density, or at least 2 different density requirements and your comments, maybe you
could restate your comments relative to the density.
Al-Jaff: Okay.
Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could help too just by answering the questions, if you
would like.
Scott: I think we were talking more about the comprehensive plan and city ordinances.
Al-Jaff: Correct. This was studied in detail when the preparation of the Year 2000 guide
plan in the comprehensive plan took place and that was in 1989-1990. Basically the area that
is, and I'll point that on the plan. This area was guided medium density.
Scott: And medium density is?
Al-Jaff: 4 to 8 units per acre. This area was guided for single family units and that would
be 2 to 4 units per acre. 0 to 4 units per acre.
Scott: When you kind of made that sweep, we're talking about the single family area as part
of Mission and the existing development for Rice Lake Manor. You kind of moved your
hand around there and I was. You're talking right there?
Al-Jaff: Correct. The single family area. Everything else west of the single family area as
well as this red line to west of the commercial area is proposed for medium and high density
and that is 8 to 16 units per acre.
Scott: So it's part of the comprehensive plan basically?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Scott: What we see is we see large lot, low density, medium, high so it's a transition toward
the highway.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Al-Jaff: Correct. I would also like to point out that Rice Lake Manor is built residential
single family. Therefore under the zoning ordinance they could, if they should hook up to
water and if they meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance, they could
subdivide their lots.
Mancino: So all 7 lots could subdivide?
Al-Jaff: If they meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance, yes they can.
Scott: Next question is a related question. Being the transition between the development and
Rice Lake Manor. So basically what we're saying is we've got residential single family over
at Rice Lake. And then we have residential single family here and then kitty corner we're
talking about medium density.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Scott: So your comments on the transition.
Al-Jaff: The applicant has reduced the number of units from 18 to 16. The ordinance would
allow them to put in 15,000 square foot lots. They are providing 20,000 square foot lots.
Single family separating single family from a higher density is an adequate transitional area.
Mancino: Well and actually, the single family on the east or Rice Lake Manor could
subdivide to even smaller lot sizes than what we have seen proposed?
Al-Jaff: Correct. If they meet.
Mancino: If they wanted to. At a future date if those 7 lots wanted to subdivide, they could
subdivide into 15,000, is that correct?
Krauss: That is true. We're not sure if all the lots have that ability depending on where the
homes are but there are some. I also think you've got to keep in perspective, Chanhassen had
one of the largest single family lot sizes in the Twin Cities. We take a lot of hits relative to
regional issues about the elitism of having half acre lots or quarter, third acre lots as a
requirement. Now it's something that the community feels real strongly about and it's a
characteristic that we've maintained. Well I guess I get a little bit concerned when we hear
well that's still not big enough. It ought to be bigger and it ought to be bigger by nature of
the fact that it's next door to somebody else if the ordinance applies, unless you happen to be
next to somebody with a different situation. We can't apply ordinances like that. I mean the
standard lot dimension in Chanhassen is 15,000 square feet. The lot's being proposed exceed
that. We're buffering a single family neighborhood with a single family neighborhood. I
31
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
think that to the extent that the traditional planning approach calls for a hierarchy of uses, you
have a case right there where it's being done.
Scott: And then also the impetus for the change from the 15,000 square foot lots that we saw
in August to the 20,000 is basically about public input, Planning Commission input and so
forth. And then also too, basically from what I understand. One lot was removed from
Block 2. The street was shifted to increase the lot size. And then the trail was added due to
input from the Park and Rec. That was another issue. Now as far as the Park and Rec
Department has determined that this meets their park and rec requirement with the trail
around the nature wetland. The picnic area if you will there. What is the status, does the
City of Chanhassen own the property that is, they're in negotiation?
Krauss: No, I wouldn't even say that. We met with the owner of the property a couple of
times and it's, to the best of my knowledge all of the land was designated, or most of it is
actually connected through Lake Riley Hills Apartments. The same partnership that owns that
and the adjacent property. That goes all the way up to Rice Marsh Lake. They know, in
fact we had their attorney in here complaining about the comprehensive plan. They know
that that area is designated for future park acquisition. I think we're in the mindset right
now, unless the Park Board comes into a significant store of cash, which is unlikely, that
while we're expecting 212 to be built in a somewhat reasonable time frame, as Mr. Nickolay
points out, it keeps getting pushed back now. But 212 is going to sever the apartment from
this property and make it fairly inaccessible. We have every expectation, or hope I should
say, that we can work out an arrangement with MnDot where MnDot through the
condemnation process would buy the entirety of that site because it has no legitimate
developable access from the property owners and then in turn sell them to the city. Or that
we would be in a position to purchase that property.
Scott: Okay. Are there any other comments from the public on this particular issue?
Jo Larson: My name is Jo Larson and I live at 8590 Tigua Circle. I'm a little questionable,
or unsure about whether the lots on Tigua Circle can subdivide or not. I know that you're
saying if they meet the minimum lot standards but I think we may have covenants in our
development. I'm not sure but one neighbor had mentioned to me once that they were told
by the original developer that he made it so they cannot subdivide it. And so I don't know if
it can or not be but I don't want you to assume that they can be subdivided because they not
be able to. Another concern I have is, I don't quite understand about the land to the east. If
that is designated for future parkland or not. I do know further east that the State does own
land abutted right up to the Eden Prairie line. I know the State does own that and maybe in
the future the city will be getting that back but I'm not too sure about the land right to the
south of me and there's one parcel...more to the east. I'm not sure if that is planned for
32
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
future park or not at all and I just would like the developer to check on those.
— Scott: Can you respond to that Paul?
Krauss: To a point. I think the best thing we can do is bring maps to a future meeting or to
the meeting with the neighbors because they're illustrated better. The park that we talked
about is south of Rice Marsh Lake Park is designated. It is shown on the comprehensive
plan. We do not own it. We would like to. We do not have access to it at this point. We
would like to. Eden Prairie is working on a comparable park facility on their side of the city
line which would form the east boundary of this park and they're working with MnDot to put
a trail that comes around that Bear Path development. The golf course development and goes
underneath the future 212 and would enter into the common property line of the park we're
proposing and what they're looking at doing. The State does own some of the land on the
Eden Prairie side and I think that was because there's a program called the RALF fund. It's
an early buy program for protecting right-of-way. We also have that availability of funding.
here but we haven't been petitioned by property owners to do it. So we, the State does not
own any of the land in Chanhassen.
Scott: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak as part of the public hearing?
Yes sir.
Mark Jesberg: My name is Mark Jesberg. I live at 8407 Great Plains Blvd and I live in one
of the houses that might be taken out if 101 is rerouted according to one of the alternatives
and I've just got a question. I think Mr. Putnam might be able to answer it. If, according to
these three units, are they drawn up with the highway as proposed if it would take out one of
those? Or could it go either way? Because when we bought the house last year they said
that when Highway new 101 was going to go behind our house. And if it does, if they
wouldn't stick to that, I don't know if they'd be able to put these three units in here.
Harberts: Question. Who's they?
Mark Jesberg: The developers.
Harberts: No, you said that when you bought your house they said that the road was going to
go behind your house. Who are they?
Mark Jesberg: That's where the road was platted out to go.
Krauss: I can expand on that.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Mark Jesberg: And the realtor told us that and we saw a little map with the proposal and it
was after we moved in that they came in with the new alternatives.
Krauss: Well, when this house was put on the market we got phone calls on this for a good
year I think. Dave got them. I got them. Sharmin got them. The realtor put up a blue line
print I think in the house that showed what had been selected alternative routing. The
selected route the city developed 5 years ago which went through the back yard basically of
this house and we continually got questions, well how far does it wind up from the house and
the answer was, we really don't know. And I think a lot of buyers were dissuaded from that
because of that reason. What's happened is, based upon the ISTEA program, the federal
program that allows you to design more sensitively with landscaping and trails, based upon
MnDot's potential for revising of how the interchange is going to work, we took the initiative
of saying, well maybe we ought to reassess what we had down on paper 5 years ago because
it might not be completely appropriate. The process is not completed yet and one of the
alternatives does take this house, and another house, but off setting that is the fact that the
road is a whole lot further away from the many more homes that are on Lake Riley. I mean -
so there's positive points and negative points for all the alternatives. One of the alternatives
is to do absolutely nothing, which is in all probability what would happen if we didn't take
the proactive role, which means that ultimately you would have Highway 212 interchange
dumping out onto old Highway 101, which is something that I think most people in the
community would find intolerable but MnDot may well be inclined to do if some initiative
isn't taken. There are four alternatives. They're still in discussion. We have had one
meeting with the neighborhood group. We're going to be having another one. Then that will
be coming through the Planning Commission and City Council for official mapping with it. I
don't know the answer to it but I do know that we're not limiting the options based upon this
plat.
Mark Jesberg: Okay. So would some of these houses, or these three would they. -
Krauss: They would stay under any of the four alternatives. What happens is the roadway
shifts away from this plat. If the alternatives that as I recall...moves it further to the west, are
selected, the roadway twists back over that way quicker and comes away from these three
units that you're looking at.
Mark Jesberg: So if it goes behind my house, like when I bought it like they thought when
we bought it, they would still.
Krauss: It should be able to stay right here. And we'll have the overlays for all those
alternatives for this and demonstrate that for you.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Mark Jesberg: So they didn't decide to change and make new alternatives because of the
new development coming in?
Krauss: Oh no. We started that process a year ago. In fact we've had continued discussions
with MnDot over the last, well I've been with the city 4 1/2 years. That entire time frame.
Mark Jesberg: Okay, thank you.
Scott: Good. Is there any other public comment?
Mike Mulligan: Good evening. My name is Mike Mulligan. I live at 8501 Tigua Circle. A
neighbor of David Nickolay's. Across the street from Jo Larson. My property is east of
David's. Somebody mentioned the word elitism here a few minutes ago. I'd like to tell you
that we're very sensitive to that sort of thing, recognizing we do live on large lots. I paid
$50,000.00 for my lot 10 years ago and you should know that over half of it is in the swamp.
A good share of David's is in the swamp. The house south of me, formerly occupied by
Tom Klingelhutz, probably a third of his lot is in the swamp. These lots are large in size but
a good share of them, of those lots are unbuildable. We don't have 4 or 5 or 7 acres of
dividable lots there. You or your predecessors allowed these lots to be platted like this and
we do have a problem, as you can see that David explained very well. I think we do have a
responsibility to try to address this transition from the lots that we do have to something
somewhat less dense than what we're looking at. With 4 to 8, did you say, living units per
acre. That's not what I see when I drive around the rest of Chanhassen, the new areas.
Thank you.
Scott: Any other comments for the public hearing? Seeing none, can I have a motion to
close the public hearing?
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Harberts: A question I have for Dave. I didn't see in this pack letters from, or review by
public safety as we did in the last project. Have they looked at it? I guess some of my
questions I have you know for instance you, what lot is this. The 6 units and 12 units just
on this side of the pond. You know it goes to the end. Should there be turn arounds? Have
they looked at this in terms of circulation and public safety?
Hempel: Maybe Sharmin can address that one but.
Harberts: I didn't see it in the pack and usually.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Hempel: We have looked at the access points. We were concerned about the individual
driveway access points that came out onto 86th Street. Those...were eliminated for the most
part.
Harberts: But some of the.
Hempel: Turn arounds and so forth?
Harberts: Yeah. I'm just surprised.
Scott: Well it's conceptual too.
Harberts: I know but so was Centex and I guess I was a little surprised that that same
information, I didn't know if it was a matter of time or because there's been so much change
and stuff but I certainly have an interest I guess more from the public safety, traffic
management, that perspective. So I would just.
Al-Jaff: The Fire Marshal has reviewed this and he said at the present time he is comfortable
with what has been presented.
Harberts: Really? Okay. Well I think you know, just broadly speaking, I like this concept
better than what we had originally seen. I like the, I don't know, I'll call them the collectors.
The main collectors in each of the areas. When I look at this, you know the request is to
rezone to a PUD and the idea with a PUD, as I understand it is that we give something to get
something back which hopefully then as we try to see is in the better interest of the
community. One of the things though I question is the preservation of desirable site
characteristics. That's one of the things that we're supposed to be getting but yet in the staff
report it talks about the grading. The grading plan wasn't changed and the fact that this had
the rolling hills and wetlands, can you just give me a little bit more insight in terms of why it
wasn't changed.
Al-Jaff: The applicant didn't submit a grading plan. However, the applicant feels that they
will have to mass grade the site in order to get the type of units that you see along the
northern portion of 86th Street. Staff is still trying to work with the applicant to make sure
that we don't get as much as grading as they are showing.
Harberts: Okay and what I recollect from our last discussion point was that that was one of
those points that we felt strong on to try and go with the topography of the land here. So I
guess that would be one point that I would stick on. Or at least try to see some more
discussion occur. I certainly, I guess with my recent involvement, and we talked earlier Jeff
36
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
about housing and things like that. I guess I like the opportunity that we have here where we
see the mix of income housing here. I think that's great. I deal with the region. I deal with
government on a day by day basis. When Paul made a comment about elitism. As long as
you're address is Eden Prairie or Chanhassen, they don't care what your street address is,
they automatically in a sense put that elite after it.. So it's just one of those stigma's that on a
regional sense, as Paul is saying, is that we have to deal with. When it's a priority of our
community and I think that's what makes it the type of community that we all in a sense take
that ownership pride in. I can understand what the people living there for a number of years,
with that open space. I'm certainly a person that enjoys open space. The more the merrier
but I think that we have a PUD. I think the city, the community is certainly benefitting from
the proposed development. There may be a few more tweaks and stuff here. I think this is
an improved plan than what we had originally seen and with the two areas that I talked about,
especially with the topography and the housing, those are two things that I think are things
that are certainly going to benefit the community. I certainly am interested to hear what the
fellow members of the commission have to say. I think when a developer comes in here, it
seems that they've been working. I think we've tried to go as much as we can. I sense that
from the developer too. Trying to in a sense make this a nice transitional piece. I understand
what the people are saying and I think it is kind of frustrating when Dave, sharing with us his
process that he followed in becoming more in tune with the process that the city, well that's
established for this. And you know, I certainly have to commend you for following through
for the number of years. Personally I think the, from a governmental perspective, it certainly
is important for that public input and we certainly have to be aware of that and ensure that
that doesn't get sacrificed. But at the same time, when we on the Planning committee, we
need to keep that entire community perspective in tune here and that's what I'm trying to do.
I would certainly, as I said, I see this as a very favorable segment to the community and I
certainly support it. I'm off my soap box.
Ledvina: One of the things that Mr. Nickolay mentioned was the possibility, or situation with
trails on Tigua Circle where there would be people that would be led down there and there
wouldn't be anywhere to go. Is that really the case? Or could you explain that to me.
Maybe I didn't understand that.
Krauss: Honestly we're a little bit stumped on that one. There would be a new trail
connection being proposed that runs up a new street that would come back here, around to
Highway 101. A trail out this way to 101. A trail this way to the park and then as I
understood from this afternoon apparently, as was indicated, substantial portions of the lots to
the east are on the Rice Marsh Lake wetland. The City took a conservation and trail
easement over portions of those properties and I don't think a trail has been built. But it's
my understanding that the easement would preserve so there would ultimately be a trail
around Rice Marsh Lake down by the lakeshore. So those are the likely locations for the
37
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
trail. All of those would route folks away from the Tigua cul-de-sac.
Ledvina: Okay. And one other thing. We talked about the increase in traffic on 101. You
know as a result of this development. Existing 101. What is the timing for this thing
actually being built? I imagine it will be phased in over a period of years. How does that
dove tail with Highway 101 and the progress of that actual construction, or reconstruction?
Krauss: The unfortunate answer is we honestly don't know. The contract letting date for
Highway 212, where it's going to start in Eden Prairie, the current date I think, is November
of '95? '96?
Al Klingelhutz: '95.
Harberts: First phase?
Krauss: Right.
Harberts: '95.
Krauss: That's the contract letting date. Now this is, this section of highway is in phase 1 of
the 212 program. Unfortunately it's the last phase of phase 1 because they're going to build
it from the east to the west. State Highway funding is in a state of disarray. There is
additional federal dollars out there now to complete highways that, this is a highway that's
been talked about and in the design approval process for 37 years. There is additional federal
money but it's match dollars and the State House last year had a 5 cent gas tax proposed that
was supposed to meet the match and would have allowed a lot of projects to stay on
schedule. But at that time they're talking about an increased federal tax and the Governor
decided he was going to veto the gas tax on the presumption that the feds were going to put a
major gas tax on. Anyway, there's been a lot of press on this lately. But in fact the feds
only put a 4 3/4 cent gas tax on, not the large one that had been proposed. It's being
resurrected again this year. It's coming up on an election year and I think you have...in the
papers speculate that this is not a good year for it to pass either. Every time this happens, it
is truly like a dominoes test. I mean every priority MnDot has gets knocked back. And it
makes it very difficult to react to things. Now you complicate that by the fact that MnDot
has never accepted any authority to do anything or responsibility for 101 and everything
that's been done on 101 to date is done because the City of Chanhassen did it and paid for it.
And we're running out funds to do much more. And we've managed to it without assessing
anybody. It was done through tax increment districts in the downtown and the industrial
parks that generated sufficient funds to make improvements to Highway 101. We can't keep
building state roads for free forever.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Mancino: But can we, I mean isn't, it's our responsibility to be planning well and when we
plan big developments like this and we don't have the roadways to support them, I mean
what's happening here?
Krauss: Commissioner Mancino, we've been doing everything that we can do to make the
ball roll. As I said, we've actually gone out and built highways for them and handed them
the keys. Nobody else does that but we've also tried to work with them and we've been
proactive in developing where this roadway's supposed to go and doing environmental studies
of where this road is supposed to go. We had a meeting about a month and a half ago where
we asked representatives of Hennepin County, Carver County, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka,
ourselves to sit down, and MnDot, to sit down and say this is not a situation that's tolerable
and we need to find a solution to it. It's going to, I'm not going to promise a quick response.
I mean getting all those agencies to agree on something at considerable cost is not going to
come easily or quickly. But we have established a frame work for that to be done.
Ledvina: What's the timing for this development this side of TH 101 or 212? In terms of
construction. Actual construction. I mean how would it be phased?
Dick Putnam: Assuming the project's approved, we would hope to begin the first phase of it
next year. Next spring. Based on our experience with the project in Eden Prairie, we're
probably looking at a 3 year build out cycle. To be finished, assuming the market stays. So
if we started in '94, we'd be finishing up in '97 probably.
Ledvina: Okay, thank you.
Krauss: Well I think this is one of those situations, it puts us in a very uncomfortable
position. We've recognized the limitations on this road for years. Is it the straw that broke
the camel's back? I mean is it this developer's fault or is it Lake Susan Hills or remember
Chan Estates. Or Tigua Lane. I mean everybody's contributing and the state, you have an
assumption that the State highway is going to be built to meet the demands being placed on
it. It hasn't been happening here and we find it as frustrating as everybody else.
Ledvina: On the issue of the public parks, I guess I am willing to accept the park
= commission's recommendation. I think they do a really good job of taking a look at the big
picture in the planning of the locations of all regional parks and I see that the trail system
here is fairly well planned and the connections seem really good. So and then the use of the
wetlands for trail opportunities, I think that's a real nice amenity. Let's see. I guess as far as
the neighboring owners are concerned I think that we have gone beyond what, or the
developer's gone beyond what the ordinance requires. I think with, from the overall sense of
planning that this does flow fairly well and I think bringing the street over is definitely a,
39
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
further to the west is definitely a good thing for the change in the plans. I guess I'm
comfortable with that part of the development. I share Diane's concern as it relates to the
grading. I recognize that this is a conceptual plan and I feel that, however I feel that things
can't be laid out in somewhat of a vacuum. I'm not saying that this is but because I do see
some sensitivity in the road design and the layout to account for the topography but at the
same time I'm, when this thing comes back as a preliminary plat I'm going to be looking at
the grading plan very closely to see that we try to minimize the earth work. As we discussed,
I would support the taking a look at how this development fits in with the alignment option.
I think that would be helpful for the public and Paul mentioned he'd do that so I'd like to see
that. I think that's the extent of my comments.
Mancino: Mr. Nickolay, you said in one of your points that you felt that there was an
inadequate transition from your property. That area to the other, to the single family area on
the west. What would you suggest? Do you have some suggestion that you could make to
us?
Dave Nickolay: I think that there could be a number of things. One, lots that represents
something that's more of a balance for the size lots that we have would be one option. And
I'm not talking about multiple rows of that type but I'm talking about the boundary line that
exists and we've got 7 backed up against 3. The street is a buffer in itself so I'm not
concerned about what happens across the street to the, further to the west. But 3 backed up
against 3 sounds like a fair compromise. I never contemplated a subdivision, that that would —
be something that you could do. You could set the tone for us. That that indeed is the only
alternative that we have to come back and appear before you with a concept plan and
whatever we have to do to do that. Beyond that, I don't have another solution. Those would
be the two that would satisfy mine...
Mancino: Okay. And you did hear staff make the, tell you a little bit about our ordinance
and the 15,000 square feet and that the developer has come back with upping that to 20,000.
Dave Nickolay: Yes. I understand that. Thank you for asking.
Mancino: Sharmin, you ask in the report about an EAW being done for this development and
you asked if the Planning Commission believes it would assist in making a determination.
How would that benefit us to have an EAW? What would we find out from one?
Krauss: I've been working with EAW's since...I'm a proponent of the process but...you can
get the same level of information simply by asking...The EAW process provides the
mechanism for coordinated assessments for a variety of issues. Environmental issues. Traffic
issues. Related to air pollution. This project does not meet the minimum threshold for an
40
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
EAW. It's always the city's prerogative if you elected one. We typically haven't but you do
have that prerogative. The project was getting close enough, I mean it's not that far away
from the threshold...In my own experience it's equally effective and probably a little more
efficient in terms of time and responsiveness to just state, we have concerns about traffic.
We want information on it. We have concerns about, and if you did have concerns about
wetland. That that be responded to. Filling out an EAW form is something that I think a lot
of consultants have a fixed price on that one. EAW's are us kind of a thing.
Scott: Highway 101's are us. Sorry Fred.
Mancino: I had some questions and some thoughts on the recommendations. One of my
thoughts was on the commercial on 17. Recommendation 17, which you also wanted to have
some suggestions and the Planning Commission's input on the commercial area. And I would
just like to add that I like the concept plans outlining the first sentence on 17.
Recommendation 17. Concept plans outlining general layouts with alternatives, building
masses, square footage limitations. I'd like to insert in there, grading, building materials,
architectural design, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the
commercial area. So as a Highway 5 task force member, those were some of the specifics
that we talked about in conceptual plans that we saw in some of the areas on Highway 5 and
they were very helpful. So I would also like to see those included in conceptual plans for
this commercial development that's part of it. Also, I'd like to see the Highway 5 design
standards used here, and suggestion out there. And I think that's something we might want to
think about in expanding to the 212 area. Using some of our design standards for Highway
5. I also am concerned about the grading. The massive grading that's done north of 86th
Street so I would like to add that as a recommendation. That grading plans be revised to
minimize mass grading of the site. This pertains to the multiple dwellings on the north side
of 86th Street. Otherwise I am really pleased with all the additions. With what the
developer's come back with. I think you've listened well to us and thank you.
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: My turn? First of all I'd like to address some of the people who came up to
speak. I know your homes are in this area and you're concerned about obviously what goes
in there. Often times how this process works seems very busitine and I don't want to be
parental or to sit up here. We're volunteers just like you are. We also have houses in the
area. We're not paid for doing this. It is a volunteer type situation for people who are
contributing to their community and a lot of times we get a difficult position where our
neighbors come before us and they say we don't want this here. It's not a matter of us sitting
up here and saying hey, we don't want it either. There are rules and regulations that we
follow here, just like this process is a part of a process that's dictated by how our city is set
41
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
up and that is set up by how the state says our city can be set up. This process that we
follow through that I think this letter here is talking about. It takes some study to figure out
that process. It is a difficult and often busitine process. It takes a lot of times not being used
to it because many people come in when there's a problem with their property. They don't,
they'll follow it and then it's fresh to them to come in and see, not necessarily know who to
ask or sometimes they wish they would have more notification or more information and
certainly the staff is here for that benefit. If you need more information or you feel unclear
on something, please ask them. For myself, I would like to have responded to your letter.
Unfortunately I would like to do it over the phone. If you would call me, I'd encourage
anybody to call anyone here on the commission. I hope you don't mind that. But I don't
have a secretarial service and I don't, I would find it difficult to correspond in this type of
situation. The city does not provide funds for that or services for that. But I'm happy to talk
to you. This town is not that big that you can't just pick up the phone and call us. I would
certainly be more than happy to talk to you what I know about it, the process and to try and
see how you can resolve that but this is the process. The process doesn't take place
someplace else. This is the matter of public hearing and record and so on and it does take
some study to figure it out and to know how to best utilize that. As the Chairman has said
here, we're an advisory group. We make recommendations to the City Council and they
make the decisions. Those are your elected officials. We make the recommendations based
on how staff helps us with law and ordinance and what we can and cannot do. And a lot of
times, sometimes you sit up here and you wish that you could do something but you know
that you can't do it. Because you're simply not allowed to. The law doesn't work that way.
And any of us who have dealt with some legal issues, we know sometimes that it seems very
convoluted but that's the way the system's set up and unless we go through a political route,
that isn't going to change. So I'd recommend if you have problems with this, that you
contact your City Councilmen. Now the civic lesson has ended for today. I want to address
the issue just briefly, I want to be comfortable that you understand that a single family
residential is based on minimums in Chanhassen, and it has been for several years. And a lot
of this started out with the Met Council pressuring tier suburbs to reduce the minimum size of
these lots.
Harberts: Why are you looking at me Jeff?
Farmakes: Because we had a discussion here on a leader. Chanhassen at one time, I know
Ladd said that in previous years entertained two tier single family zoning. That did not
occur. There was pressure from the Met Council to get that down to city sized lots. We can
go on at great lengths about the issue between metro politics and the fact that we all exist
because Minneapolis and St. Paul are here and we all exist for them. But mar.y of us do not
hold that opinion. I wish in some cases that there could be more of a transition but I think
clearly someone has to say that what we're dealing with here, the developer needn't increase
42
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
the size of the lots beyond the minimum standards. And the minimum standards are 15,000
square feet. The fact that there's a big house sitting next to a small house, as long as it's
zoned single family, we cannot as part of the ordinance say your house has to be as big as
this house. Single family is a minimum and if someone chooses to go above the minimum,
that does not stop someone else from building to the minimum requirements of the zone next
to it. Common sense can prevail. Negotiations can prevail but really the ordinance states
what the requirement is and it does not say that one lot of one size has to be alike to another,
as long as it's over the minimum. And unfortunately I say it over and over again. What we
deal with here are minimums. And often those of us who went beyond that have come in for
restitution or arguing that it's not the same as mine and yes that's true but those aren't the
rules that are set up that we're playing by. And I agree. I think that the developer went out
of their way. I like this plan. It's quite an improvement. I also like to give credit where
credit's due and the park issue, I believe we discussed here at the last issue and the trails.
This did not go back to the park board and I really like what they've done because I like the
fact that it's small in scope but it's very management for that size and it offers a commons
area in high density which I think is really important. It doesn't need to have 20 ball parks
and it doesn't need to take up many acres but it's a gathering place. That's what I think is
important. I like the alternative plan that's been popped on there. Patched on there. I think
it opens up the area more. There is a natural buffer from the wetland going out to the east. I
think the fact that the properties that have been boosted up to 20,000 square feet is beyond
what is required and I applaud that. I like the direction of the street lining. I think that that's
a major improvement over what was proposed. I'd like to see maybe just to throw a few
more things out, I'd like to see a few benches to enhance the trails that go around that park.
Or the trail that goes around the wetland, if that's possible. They're showing a few benches
around the totlot but if there's a way again to help people enjoy that. Getting out into the
open. I'm a little, I want to make a quick comment that it would have been nice to have a
little something more of a gathering area for the area above the road next to that Dupont of
some sort. Basically there's, anyone who wants to utilize the lot area that's, where it's mark
with 1 would have to come across the road and walk a considerable ways. I'm wondering if
there's something that could be done to utilize that property that's adjacent just to the west of
the Dupont. Whether or not maybe we could knock off a unit there or not. It doesn't bother
me how they realign the units. I think that they've done a nice job of that. The highway
issue it seems to me is, at the present that's out of our hands. Until MnDot decides. MnDot,
not developers that will decide where that road goes with input from the city but as often is
the case, those that pay the most for it have the most input. So where that happens farther up
really doesn't affect this particular development, in my opinion. Where the alternates, as I
understand it. The public safety issue and so on. Those are all issues that are relevant and
they're important issues and I would like to see those developed further. Similar to the last
development where we're going to get this type of density. That we make sure we have the
support structures in place that will accept this type of traffic. Oh, grading. Yes. That was
43
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
the last one on the list here. I somewhat know that high density will require more grading
because of the issue that you're compacting structures. So it will require more grading than
say a single family type operation. So I'm open to that. I'd like to see that minimized
obviously as much as possible but I will look at that with interest when...that's the extent of
my comments.
Scott: Okay, thank you. I too am interested in the grading and I think that also too,
something obviously we'll talk about minimums but I think something could also be done
with Block 2. That removing a lot or two from that area will probably have an insignificant
financial impact to the project. However, from a marketability standpoint, I mean that's your
bailiwick. That's really the extent of my comments. I support approval of the conceptual
plan so I'd like to entertain a motion to that effect.
Mancino: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the Conceptual Approval of
PUD #93-4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993 subject to the following conditions.
Conditions 1 thru 5. Conditions 1 thru 16 remain the same. Condition 17 reads, first line is
changed to read, concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building masses,
square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access,
and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. Number 18 reads, the
first line. Excuse me, the second line is amended to read, the hard surface coverage of the
multi-family portion of the site located south of 86th Street and east of the wetland exceeds
the permitted 30%. 19, 20, 21 read as they exist. 22 reads, address the hard surface issue to
meet requirements of the PUT) ordinance. The hard surface coverage south of 86th Street and
east of the wetlands may not exceed 30% of this site. 23 reads as is and 24 is a new
recommendation. 24 reads, grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site as
it pertains to the multiple dwellings on the west side of 86th Street.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual
approval of PUD #93-4 as amended.
Ledvina: Excuse me Mr. Chair. I don't think we got a second.
Scott: Is there a second?
Ledvina: I would second that.
Scott: Now it has been moved and seconded.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
conceptual approval of PUD #93-4 as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, subject to
44
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland.
Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th
Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets
in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to
determine the necessary right-of-way, traffic lanes and signal justification report.
Staff anticipates the proposed right-of-way is inadequate.
2. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in
accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and
street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades
throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary
permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDOT.
Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW.
4. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control
discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining
the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements
on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum
20-foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat.
Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook.
5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to the City's sanitary
sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provide from the existing Lake Susan
sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the
applicant. In addition, the City will authorize/perform a study to determine if there is
excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The
applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study.
6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12-inch water line. If the
applicant installs the oversized (12-inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant
by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing
costs shall be the difference between an 8-inch watermain and a 12-inch watermain.
Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's
recommendations.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and
retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be
designed for a 10-year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference
between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100-year 24-hour storm event.
The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the
predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to
improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide
alternative regional ponding on-site, the applicant shall work with the City in
implementing the best location for said ponding.
8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon the City Council authorizing and
awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and
water facilities to service this site.
9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed
Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of
both landscaping materials and berming.
10. The applicant shall include a drain-tile system in all public streets where the adjacent
dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm
sewer.
11. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right-of-way
determined from a traffic study for future and 86th Street.
12. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant
shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on
Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles.
13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report and
Engineer's memo. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the
staff report.
14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4.
These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas.
15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along
Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 right-of-ways and between the area separating commercial and
residential lots.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
16. Meet the following conditions of the park and recreation commission.
A. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1.
This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas,
picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc.
B. Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from
Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and on "A" street from West 86th Street
north to the street's terminus.
C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the
sidewalk system to the "park" site. In consideration for the construction of said
trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction.
Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with
documentation for verification.
D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the
rate then in force.
17. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), building massing, square
footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian
access, and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We
realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this
area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located
within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our
ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best
interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this
report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input.
18. Site layout and design may be acceptable for a PUD Concept but there are many
shortfalls. The hard surface coverage of the multi family portion of the site located
south of 86th Street and east of the wetland exceeds the permitted 30%. Mass
grading of the multi-family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that
possibly can be improved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations
appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be
achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open
space.
19. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the
potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been
47
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families
and this may be a good site. This can be discussed further before the formal
development plan is submitted.
20. It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond
the applicant's control and we had hopped to have it completed by now. By the time
formal approval is requested, this may have been finished but if not, the western edge of
the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the interim. The majority of the site is
not impacted by this issue.
21. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one
would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commission believes it
would assist in making a determination, an elective EAW could be required and
submitted with the formal PUD submittal.
22. Address the hard surface issue to meet requirements of the PUD Ordinance. The hard
surface coverage south of 86th Street and east of the wetland may not exceed 30% of
site area.
23. Eliminate the driveway access located west of "A" Street as shown in attachment 3."
24. Grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site as it pertains to the
multiple dwellings on the west side of 86th Street.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
(The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE FOR SITE PREPARATION (IN EXCESS OF
1,000 CUBIC YARDS) ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST 78TH STREET, BETWEEN KERBER
AND POWERS BOULEVARD, T.F. JAMES COMPANY.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Scott called the public
hearing to order.
Jim Hill: Jim Hill. Consultant for Charlie James.
Scott: I'm sorry sir, I didn't get your name.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Jim Hill: Jim Hill. I'll apologize for Charlie not being here this evening. He's out of town.
Out of state and did not make it. The intent here is to prepare the site for the first user and
site plan which according to Charlie has indicated he will be in within the next 4 weeks
here...The site as you know, the condition of the site, it has to be graded no matter what the
use is...get an early start. We're going to do some of the work before the winter socks in on
us. I'll answer any questions if you have some.
Harberts: Can I use it for fill?
Ledvina: Do you need 40,000 cubic yards?
Harberts: Yeah, I'd like to use a little bit for fill. Well I was going to ask him what you're
going to do with this dirt. I know a wetland that I wanted to fill in.
Scott: Any other questions for the applicant from the Planning Commissioners?
Jim Hill: Mr. James has two bidders that have supplied him bids for removal of the dirt and
once he gets back in we'll sit down with the responsible low bidder and we'll see routes and
so forth and work it out with staff. As you know those have not been determined because we
don't know where the dirt is going. But if we have a good idea where it's going, and it will
be shared with you when we determine that.
_ Harberts: I have another question. This is a little more legitimate. What happens if you
don't do the grading now? What's the impact?
Jim Hill: The impact is we don't start the first building this fall. In the winter. The
foundation.
Harberts: Oh you're going to start the work?
Jim Hill: The site plan will be in in the next 3-4 weeks.
Krauss: I think what it allows them to do, I mean there won't be any formal approvals until
early next year but if the site is rough graded, it is possible at that point to put in footings
over winter and they can start construction.
Harberts: Okay. I didn't realize that.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is a public hearing and are there any
members of the public who'd like to speak at this public hearing? Let the record show that
49
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
there are none.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Comments please.
Mancino: Comments. Only one question for Bob. Should we be stipulating in the
recommendations when the stock pile has to be removed? I mean putting a date on that.
Generous: Well you could if you want, yes. It all depends on, they'll probab.y get it off
there before any deadline...grading by the summer of '94. In the summer of '94 and I would
assume that at least by September that's the end of summer. They'll probably have the
construction on that part of it going by then.
Mancino: Okay. That's my only question.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: I really don't have anything to add. I do want to say that I thought this was an
excellent staff report. You did a nice job Bob.
Generous: Thank you.
Scott: Diane.
Harberts: Well I'll refrain my questions from the dirt in my wetlands in my back yard but I
have no other questions or comments.
Scott: Good. Neither do I. Can I have a motion?
Harberts: I'll move approval that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim
Use Permit #93-2 as shown on the site plan dated September 24, 1993 and subject to the
following conditions numbers 2 thru 18 as identified in the staff report.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
50
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
approval of Interim Use Permit #93-2 as shown on the site plan dated September 24,
1993 and subject to the following conditions:
1. Deleted.
2. The City of Chanhassen will process the WCA exemption report and necessary
paperwork to administer the WCA.
3. Runoff calculations for the temporary sediment basins shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval. The temporary sediment basins shall be designed in accordance to
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
4. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to site grading and be maintained until
the site is fully restored and removal is authorized by the city.
5. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory
agencies such as the Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers, etc.
6. Applicant shall obtain and comply with the necessary permits for the demolition of the
farmhouse and out buildings as well as the abandonment of the well and septic
system(s).
7. All draintiles encountered upon grading shall be reconnected or relocated to discharge
into the city's storm sewer system.
8. The two existing farm access driveways shall be eliminated upon construction of the
new site entrances off of Kerber Boulevard and West 78th Street.
9. The applicant will be required to apply and possibly obtain building permits for the
retaining walls proposed along the north slope of the property.
10. Upon completion of site grading, an additional row of Type I silt fence shall be installed
approximately 150 feet north of West 78th Street over the easterly one half of the site.
11. The applicant shall pay grading fees in accordance to the Uniform Building Code, Table
70-B (Attachment No. 1).
12. The applicant shall enter into a grading permit with the City and provide the necessary
financial security in the amount of $32,000.00 to guarantee compliance with the terms of
approval for site grading.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
13. If material is to be hauled to or from the site, the applicant shall submit to city staff
designated haul routes for approval prior to hauling activities.
All voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who abstained, and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LUNDGREN BROS FOR REZONING PROPERTY FROM RR, RURAL
RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT
TO SUBDIVIDE 112 ACRES INTO 115 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
GALPIN BOULEVARD 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, SONG-CARLSON
PROPERTY.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Scott called the public hearing
to order.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. We don't have a presentation
for you this evening. We feel that the material provided pretty much covers everything. We
do have I believe 4 or 5 items on the conditions that we would like to discuss with the
Planning Commission.
Scott: Okay. And this is a public hearing but are there any members of the public here for
this particular item? Let the record show that there are none so there is no public hearing.
May I have a motion to close the public hearing please.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Harberts: I'm going to pass simply because I did not participate in the presentation last time.
I was not here so I will look to the members that were here to make comment:;.
Ledvina: Okay, well I would ask that Terry go through his items that he has in terms of the
recommendations or the conditions of the staff report. Some concerns that you have with
those.
Terry Forbord: Should I do that now?
Scott: Yeah.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Terry Forbord: Mr. Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban will be addressing those issues.
John Uban: Thank you Terry. We have been working even since the memo was faxed to the
city at 5:00 so we're trying to constantly resolve the last few issues and what I just want to
do is make some clarifications and that you may have a very clear understanding on almost
every single issue. The condition number 11 for instance. This is one where we've been
working back and forth with the city on street right-of-way widths. Street right-of-ways for
cul-de-sacs. Staff would like to have them 60 feet and we would agree with that. We had
wanted them to be 50 feet but we also have looked at a condition that could be added that the
front yard setbacks for those homes on that part of the cul-de-sac could be 25 feet instead of
30. That way the actual homes won't have to move in relationship to the plan that we've
created. So it's really just the moving, the legal moving of a right-of-way line a little closer
to the house but the relationship between the street and the house actually stays the same. In
addition to that, the Street H and I that goes up into the woods on the northwest corner of the
property, that is this area. We had proposed at 40 feet and staff would like to have it at 50
feet and we looked carefully at the utilities and so forth and how that would work and we
think we have a resolution where we could add that it could, that it would be a 50 foot right-
of-way and we're still trying to save as many trees as possible. Instead of the 24 foot wide
road, we'd go to a 28 foot street section. Not the standard but a modified 28 foot wide street.
That's back to back so it's a little bit narrower. But in that right-of-way the city would allow
retaining walls and would allow the shoulder to slope back to match grading very quickly
rather than the standard large flat boulevard that you would commonly see. So we could
taper back in up to a 3:1 slope back to existing grade. And that also will help to save trees
and do the least amount of disturbing of root systems. So with those kind of modifications, I
think we've reached a resolution that works very well for both of us. On number 20 and 24.
It's really the same issue and this, we had a discussion about it and it is the access for the
Song parcel which is their estate lot. It's not quite 10 acres. 9 1/2 acres. It's on the north
side of the whole subdivision and they plan a home that will overlook Lake Harrison. They
see this as an important part of their resitting their home. Their old home sits down here next
to this pond they dredged out for a swimming hole and they would like to have their own
driveway access off of Galpin. It's what they have presently and they would like to have it
repeated up here. It was suggested in the conditions that between these two houses, the
driveway would go up through this area into the woods to get to their home and not create
another entrance onto Galpin. We think actually, and at some point in the future this was
redeveloped and there would probably be some road system that would continue to serve all
that land. Most of the properties in this area are very large land holdings and are being held
by people I don't think will subdivide for some time. And an additional access point out here
may not be that critical with traffic and so forth. We've talked both with planning and with
engineering. Engineering is indifferent to which way it goes. Planning would like to
consolidate and keep an access to the cul-de-sac. We think it's inappropriate for the Song's.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
They certainly feel it's inappropriate to be connecting their estate lot to the end of a cul-de-
sac so we want to have it come out onto Galpin. And so those two conditions, 20 and 24, we
would just either like to have them struck or reversed to allow the Songs to have a simple -
driveway out to Galpin. Item number 25. We worked on this and we'd just like to add to
the very end of it to clarify the State Aid standards for street aid. That it would be built with
a 7 ton section. And we've talked to engineering and we believe that is agreeable. 26 Paul
talked about and that's what we agreed to and that sounds great. And so the last one is really
item number 31 and this is a setback to a drainageway that has been unplatted, or sort of
unrecognized before and I want to point that out to you because I think a little too much
attention is being paid to it. I don't think it's as significant as everyone might believe. It is
a drainageway that drains the pond next to the Song's existing home. It comes to this just is
a wet swale that comes down and then finally joins the creek at the bottom of the ravine -
through here. And we already have a conservation area, a buffer area, setbacks from the
creek bed up to this lot. We also around this man made pond, we also have a buffer area and
a large setback to the front of this building. And this swale runs along the side and if we
then place another buffer and setback, 10 and 40 feet, we will significant reduce the ability to
develop on this property. And we think that it isn't a creek. It's really just a swale that
drains that pond and that pond seems to be draining quite a bit now because the Song's use a
heat pump and the heat and the source that they use to extract heat is their well water so this
overflows and keeps their pond level high and then of course the surplus drains on down.
And so it's not really a wetland in our opinion but is a drainageway. So we thought, instead
of 40 feet, a 20 foot setback would be good from a 10 foot buffer. So we can create then a
protected space that would in combination be 50 feet wide with the drainageway in the
middle. And we think that's more than adequate to protect that particular feature so we
suggest that the setbacks in 31 be changed to 20 feet instead of 40. Those are our issues.
We think they're fairly small at this point and we will answer any other questions.
Ledvina: Have you discussed these with staff then?
John Uban: We've discussed all of them except number 31.
Ledvina: Dave, could I get your reaction to these then? Just go right through them.
Hempel: Item number 11. Mr. Uban is correct. We've had discussions regarding the street
width on H and I. The right-of-way being...50 foot wide right-of-way over 40 and increase
the street width to 28 foot back to back over the 24. Compromising the boulevard typical
slope which would normally be a 2% grade to allow for private utilities, gas, electric and
telephone. Allow them to modify that to a greater percentage of slope. To meet the existing
terrain much better. Also to allow them to place retaining walls within the right-of-way area
subject to maintenance responsibilities placed amongst the homeowners association and that
54
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
can be done by a chain of title such as a development contract which they would be entering
into. Making sure the maintenance responsibilities... As to condition number 20 and 24.
Harberts: Excuse me Dave. Can you go back and address the 25 foot setback request on
number 11 versus the required 30.
Hempel: Oh I'm sorry.
Harberts: Do you have a feeling for that?
Hempel: Right. It is our belief that we shouldn't compromise the 60 foot wide right-of-way
on Streets B, D and G with those areas all being mass graded anyway. The applicant has
requested to maintain the placement of the homes, the grading and so forth to accommodate
their request for a 50 foot setback. Or 50 foot right-of-way with a 30 foot setback. We
thought well, we could live with granting the 25 foot setback of those lots and get our 60 foot
right-of-way. Essentially the house is placed in the same location. The same green space,
and so forth. The city will just have the 60 foot right-of-way versus the 50 foot right-of-way.
And I don't want to speak for Paul but I believe he's in concurrence with that as well.
Krauss: Yeah. We've always supported the 25 foot setback and such. Now it's raised
questions and...but I think Dave, in this case Dave is correct. Visually it's not going to look
any different. You're just talking about where the...The house is going to be exactly the same
distance back, whether we get the full right-of-way and a modified front yard setback or the
smaller right-of-way with...setback. It's exactly the same.
Mancino: But what's standard right now is the standard right-of-way which is 60 foot and a
30 foot setback. I mean that's the standard so.
Harberts: What are we gaining?
Mancino: Pardon?
Harberts: What are we gaining though by if we were to.
Mancino: To go with the standard?
Harberts: No.
Mancino: To go with the reduced?
55
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Harberts: Yeah.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, maybe I can address the issue. For those of you who were here at
the last meeting...just kind of talk a little bit about that. There's a number of real sensitive
areas on the site that we believe as the applicant, that the right-of-way should be significantly
reduced from what is typical in the city of Chanhassen. Typical in the city of Chanhassen at
least within the last 5 to 6 years has been 60 foot right-of-way. Prior to that they were 50
foot right-of-way. Prior to 6 years ago. So what we had come in in some of the sensitive
areas we had asked for, in one area, 40 foot right-of-way. In the northwest corner area that
had the significant sugar maples and a reduced pavement of 26 feet back to, or excuse me.
24 feet street, 27 feet back to back. In negotiations with planning staff and the city engineer,
trying to find a compromise that would satisfy their concerns and at the same time still trying
to meet the objectives that we would be able to obtain through reduced right-of-way and
reduced pavement. We were all able to come up with some compromises and there were
trade-offs on everyone's part. And that's how we came up with what you're seeing before
you this evening. As far as the right-of-way. I hope that answers your question of how we
got to where we are today.
Harberts: Thank you.
Hempel: I'll continue on the conditions. Number 24 has to do with the private driveway on
the Song's parcel, Lot 9. Mr. Uban pointed out that engineering really, it does make some
sense to have a driveway, a private driveway through the cul-de-sac to serve that parcel.
There's a sewer line that goes through there as well. The driveway would be aver that sewer
line. On the other hand, if the applicant came in and subdivided down the road, Carver
County would not object to another curb cut for that parcel. Essentially it could be...serviced
off the county road anyway. So it could be served either access point.
Scott: Would the County object to a curb cut for the private residence?
Hempel: I did contact Mr. Bill Weber, the Assistant Carver County Engineer that, kind of
laid out the specifics on it and they would grant the curb cut for that driveway.
Ledvina: Would it make any sense to put a condition in there that the private drive would
have to be utilized as a road if this property is subdivided? I mean does that make any
sense? -
Krauss: I don't think we're clear on where the road would be.
Ledvina: Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to restrict it in that way.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Krauss: If I could touch on my concerns. I mean this is not an issue that the world's going
to stop turning over. But we have always recommended against additional private driveways
entering onto county roads, without fail. In fact we're eliminating one with the existing Song
residence with this plat. It's being served off the internal street system. I'm concerned, I
mean you could argue precedent one way or the other but is this lot different than all the
other lots we've refused to have separate driveways. We may have had combined driveways
just because it's bigger or it's going to have a bigger house on it. Relative to the large
estates in the area, yeah. There's a number of them in the area. Jerome Carlson lives nearby.
The Mancino's live nearby. And of course Prince lives across the street. But I'll tell you, I
was astonished by the fact that somebody's making apparently serious inquiries about
developing Prince's property. And when I first heard this I said, well is this just some broker
trying to do a deal. He's wasting our time and then, you know I think Dave's been contacted
by them and Sharmin's been contacted by them and it seems a lot more serious than that. So
I mean the world changes and these issues come about. Thirdly is wherever we're having
intersections with the streets, on Galpin we're required to put an acceleration and deceleration
and turn lanes so that the movement can be done safely. The driveway it's very tough to
justify doing much of that at all. So I mean are we going to be horribly put out if the
driveway's put in? No. I don't think it's a great precedence.
Mancino: Well we've got it with Rottlund and Brett Davidson. We have two curb cuts there
for those two developments.
Krauss: They're streets.
Mancino: Yeah, that's true. They're regular streets. But we didn't have them connect. We
didn't punch them through did we? I remember talking about that.
Hempel: ...Mr. Brett Davidson to relocate his driveway from Galpin Blvd to the interior
street.
Scott: You're right. It was a similar situation. He had a home. His home didn't move
though but he ended up getting access off of the interior street.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman?
Scott: Yes Terry.
Terry Forbord: I don't want to talk about this too much because it's been belabored a lot but
I have to emphasize how important this is to the Songs. Right now they have a 100 acre
piece of property. It's an estate. They've lived there for a long time and they want to build
57
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
a significant home and they want to still live on an estate for the remaining years of their life.
Now if they came in and this wasn't a proposal by Lundgren Bros but they just came in to
the city and said we have 100 acres. We'd like to subdivide it. One's going to be a 10 acre
piece and the other piece is going to be 90 acres. They could go through that process. The
city would have to give them access for the two as long as they met all the criteria. They'd
have a private drive for that. There could be another private drive for the 90 acre piece and
they could do that. And then when they were done with that, then they could come back to
Lundgren Bros and say, okay now we'll sell you the 90 acre piece and they'd have a plat of
record with their own access. I mean it's really important to them. If any of you have ever
lived in the country. I don't know who does here and who doesn't. I have before and I
wanted my own private driveway. That's why I wanted to live in the country. I wanted that
type of lifestyle. Granted this area is urbanizing but I don't think that it's really significant to
the approval of this plat. I think it's something that as the owner or fee owner of their
property, they should have the right to have that private driveway...and I just wanted you to
know that's very important to them and they personally will be coming and talking to the
Council about it because it's so important to them.
Scott: Continue with your comments.
Ledvina: And then the last one. 31 I believe it is.
Hempel: The street grades. We believe...Street A should be constructed to in accordance
with State Aid standards. We did discuss the item. State Aid does require a 9 ton. 9 ton
state aid does but we'd be willing to deviate from that standard to a 7 ton design since the
applicant will be actually building the street and there will be no state aid dollars used to
construct that street so we're able to by-pass MnDot's regulations. In the future, MnDot, if
we need to go back and.
Harberts: Reconstruct.
Hempel: Right, we can use State Aid dollars to beef it up to the 9 ton standard with a small
overlay project.
Harberts: Question. Why does MnDot have a 9 ton requirement then?
Hempel: MnDot has a 9 ton requirement because State Aid routes usually.
Harberts: Is it kind of like a blanket approach?
Hempel: No, there's more commercial traffic. Truck traffic routes and so forth and the
58
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
lighting of the roads and so forth. Collector type streets. Staff is comfortable with designing
the 7 ton standards, which is the city's current pavement design. 26, Paul had revised earlier
that the street extension to the northwest shall be through another street located in the
Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property. 31. I don't know if Paul wants to address that.
Mancino: Is that a swale or a creek?
Scott: Yeah, how's it classified?
Krauss: I guess I'm reluctant to change it at this point. I mean we'll take the developer's
comments under advisement but I'm not equipped to evaluate this changes at this point. I
sent Diane home after the last item so, we can certainly, I mean if it makes sense to do it this
way, we can bring that up. I don't know what to advise you right now.
Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Well that's pretty much it. I would say though that I guess
considering that it would just be a matter of process for getting that additional curb cut, I
think that it's reasonable to allow that to occur with this proposal. So I guess would support
that at this point.
Mancino: I agree with you too. On the Song property?
Ledvina: Right.
Mancino: To go ahead. I would too. If I were there and wanted 10 acres and my estate, etc,
I can, Dave wasn't so much, he didn't seem too much against it. Kind of one way or
another. I would support allowing the private driveway for that amount of acreage.
Scott: Excuse me. What's the distance between the street and the curb cut? A couple
hundred feet or what?
Hempel: 600-700 feet.
Scott: Oh! There's something about 300 feet between.
Krauss: That's a minimum.
Scott: Minimum? Okay so we're, oh you know.
Krauss: You're well in excess.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Scott: Okay. That's fine. I'm sorry.
Mancino: That's okay. That's a good question, thanks.
Scott: That's okay.
Mancino: Terry, I had a question about recommendation number 2 from the Planning
Commission and it has to do with the front yard setbacks being reduced to 20 feet or the
developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result. Does that mean that,
well obviously that's not going to happen in any of the area that's on the agricultural part of
it. Anything east, you're not going to ask for a 20 foot setback because there are no trees to
preserve on the eastern part of this land. On the western edge where you go up into Street H,
I'm assuming that's where you're going to ask for a 20 foot setback instead of a 30 foot
setback?
Terry Forbord: Actually there's a, we walked the site with the staff quite some time ago but
I think it's fair to say that through here and there's a few areas maybe right it. here. There
may be a consideration and then it will be, I think we determined that, the way I understand
it, the way staff wants to do it is, if we submit a building permit application and at that point
in time when the survey's been done and it's determined that hey, we can save something
there. Let's talk to the staff and the staff says, hey you're right. That's when we should
make that adjustment because every house will be designed differently. So I don't see that
happening on every lot but if you've ever, I don't know if any of you have ever been on this
property but I know the staff has. There are 4 or 5, 6 foot trees, some of them. And if you
are careful, you're going to be able to save them. And so there should be, we hope there's
some latitude to enable that.
Mancino: So what I just want to make sure of is that on Street H, that if you have one house
that needs to come up to the have the 20 foot setback, that all those in a row aren't going to
do that. That it's only going to be those specific houses because of the tree preservation.
Terry Forbord: You're speaking of this street?
Mancino: Yep.
Terry Forbord: Now on this particular street, because of the reduced right-of-way, I believe
that, what was the request?
John Uban: It was for 50 feet of right-of-way and then up to a 20 foot setback.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Terry Forbord: On a case by case basis.
Mancino: On a case by, on a house by house.
Krauss: It's the same.
Terry Forbord: That's correct.
Mancino: Okay. And I'm referring back to your Willow Ridge which has all setbacks, the
right-of-way is 50 feet and the setbacks are 25 feet and they're every house regardless of tree
preservation. Because a lot of the houses don't have trees in the back yards so they have
been, they have the 25 foot setback regardless.
Terry Forbord: Yeah, some people have found that offensive. I would say the vast majority
haven't but some people find that offensive.
Mancino: Okay. Those are all my questions.
Farmakes: I have no comments to make on this. I think we discussed them at length before.
The issues that were still open and...I support staff's recommendation across the board. I'm
concerned about the Song issue. I realize that probably is arguable that it makes no
difference. However, I support the Planning staff that either we should quantify how many
acres it makes no difference or we should follow precedent on this issue. And I'm not
opposed the saying that if we have a connection and we have over 50 acres or whatever. If
we want to qualify it that way, that's fine but I think it's a mistake just for us to.
Harberts: Arbitrarily.
Farmakes: Arbitrarily say well, it's a lot of land and we should let them hook up. I'm a
little concerned about how we're going about evaluating that. Other than that I support staff
recommendations on this issue.
Scott: I just have one question. I remember back in a meeting we had in January we talked
about island cul-de-sacs and as I recall you don't like those. We were talking about
maintenance. We were talking about people falling down and getting sued, I mean it got to
be pretty ridiculous but I see a couple of them and I just want to see how those fit in with the
stuff, because I can't rip the ordinance off the top of my head right now. But I see them
there. Speak to me.
Hempel: Staff's gone through and reviewed those. You're right. The engineering
61
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
department's perspective is more the public works, from a maintenance standpoint. We didn't
like them. Maintenance headache. This situation's a little bit different than...
Scott: Are we preserving some trees?
Hempel: Well, there are going to be landscaped median areas and a homeowners association
will be responsible for maintenance of them. The city actually went out and performed some
tests on snow plowing cul-de-sacs with islands in them. They went out to the Dinner Theater
and it actually turned out, the snow plow drivers like them better. It was easier because there
wasn't as much snow to be removed.
Scott: Had a little snow plowing derby out there. That's what you guys were doing. Okay.
That's fine. Alright, anyway. I don't have any further comments. Do we have a motion?
Mancino: I move that we approve the preliminary PUD of 111.77 acres of property to create
115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval
subject to the following conditions. All the conditions will stay the same as in the staff
report. Does anybody want to help on 11? Matt, did you have that written down?
Ledvina: Yeah, sure. For number 11, it should read the final plat shall be amended to
include revised street right-of-ways on Streets B, D and G to a 60 foot right-of-way with
Streets H and I to be 50 foot right-of-way with a 28 foot street section. Front yard setbacks
for streets B, D and G shall be allowed to go to a 25 foot setback.
Mancino: And retaining walls can be placed within right-of-way on Street H?
Ledvina: Yes. The use of retaining walls and 3:1 slopes shall be allowed for Streets H and -
I.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, just one clarification on that. 28 foot wide street width is limited to
Streets H and I only. Street B, D and G would be your typical 31 foot wide street section.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman, for the city's benefit I think that there was something over
looked there. The city would like that the maintenance of those retaining wall; be the
responsibility of, when he said HOA. The Homeowners Association. We'd like to see it as
the responsibility of the lot owner. Is that satisfactory? It does make a difference to the
homeowner but the city does want to be protected there so we should.
Hempel: The lot owner, it won't be on anybody's lot. It will be within the city right-of-way.
62
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
That's why I'm wondering if the Association probably wouldn't be more appropriate. If
there's some language we can work out in the development contract but if the property owner
doesn't own the property.
Scott: Yeah. I think it's a homeowners issue.
Mancino: Okay. 12 thru 19 remain the same that are in the staff report. 20 reads, the Song
homestead shall gain access via a private driveway off of Galpin Blvd or County Road 117.
Number 21 thru 23 reads the same. 24 is deleted. 25 reads, the last sentence reads, a street
shall be constructed to State Aid standards with a 7 ton section. 26 reads, the last sentence
reads, the street extension shall be through the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately
to the west. 27 thru 31 the same. Oh 31, we want to add a last sentence that says staff will
take the developer's comments under advisement.
Scott: Can I have a second please? Anyone?
Ledvina: I'll second it.
Harberts: Discussion.
Scott: Well it's been moved and seconded that we act on Commissioner Mancino's motion.
Is there any discussion?
Harberts: I'd like to just revisit what Jeff had said in terms of having some kind of criteria or
some kind of rationale so that if this comes up again, we've got some kind of direction in
which to look at.
Scott: For the access off of Galpin?
Harberts: The driveway, yes.
Scott: And we can, I would think staff being more familiar with existing situations. I think
what we would do is just direct you to, and I don't know whether this becomes an ordinance
issue but something that, some guidelines. Acreage size and you qualify for these.
Harberts: I think we need the rationale tonight though.
Scott: Size of property.
63
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Mancino: So why wouldn't we?
Harberts: Well I think Paul had a real good perspective in terms of public safety.
Mancino: As far as not having a right turn lane?
Harberts: Well, exactly.
Farmakes: I think there's a lot of compelling evidence why it's probably makes sense with
that amount of property. There's also, what's disturbing though is that it's fielder's choice
for the issue of hook-up. We're creating a precedent without having a precedent to follow.
We're not quantifying how many acres. We're not quantifying restricted access or the fact
that they can't go anywhere else. The fact that it's a private home or that they've lived there
for a while really, I don't think probably we use that as criteria for other issues of that sort.
If we had that criteria, I think I would probably support that hook-up. It's a significant piece
of property and so on but I feel a little uncomfortable just arbitrarily saying well that makes
sense. Let's do it.
Harberts: And I have to agree with that and I like the 600 foot distance. Is that what it was
Dave? I think it's great. I just, it's like take that dart and throw it and where it lands, that's
what I'm uncomfortable with. So I'm just looking for some rationale in terms of why are we
doing it this evening.
Farmakes: And if I had 5 acres and wanted to access, I'd say you're doing it here. Why.
And then you're saying well I've got 5, he's got 100, what's the difference?
Mancino: And it's been going on up and down Galpin all the time. Since I've lived there
for 10 years. People have bought 11 acres. They've bought 5 acres. And they've gotten
curb cuts and gone into their property.
Farmakes: Yeah, but as the lots get smaller and smaller, one imagines that there will be
more and more cut requests.
Ledvina: If you say we're setting a precedent, I mean you just said there were 5 acre lots
that got curb cuts on Galpin so I don't think, this doesn't represent a precedent.
Farmakes: Well, that was 15 or 20 years ago. The issue is whether or not it's currently
relevant.
Scott: Is there an ordinance that specifies the.
64
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Mancino: No, there's just a new one. It's 3 acres. 2 1/2-3 acres.
Hempel: There is a public street...collector street and arterial streets, there's a certain
distance.
Scott: What about county?
Hempel: Private driveways, I don't believe there is. This situation the access is under the
jurisdiction of another agency, Carver County.
Mancino: Yeah, there was someone who just moved into Galpin just across from the Song
property, Westerpatt. I can't remember but they just bought 2 1/2 to 3 acres and put in a
private driveway and a new home and did all the landscaping and everything which was
approximately 2 years ago.
Harberts: Did they have access to an interior road though?
Mancino: No. No. It's right off Galpin.
Farmakes: But that's part of what, why we're discussing restricted access.
Harberts: And I'm not, like I said, I'm not really against it..I want some rationale.
Mancino: So that we know.
Harberts: Exactly.
Farmakes: I think so and probably the end result again is a public safety issue. How many
cuts do we actually wind up getting once the area is fully developed?
Mancino: Because I see this land developing with the Carlson property when it develops.
Scott: If there is no access to it, and I'm thinking of the last development that we put
together. We took a curb cut away. They had access to, their property was abutting the cul-
de-sac anyway, as I recall. So that made a lot of sense. This is a situation where we don't
have that situation. Plus the fact, I think there was another issue that the distance inbetween.
Well yeah, we would have had a curb cut from the existing driveway that was 100 or 150
feet away from the curb cut for the collector for the development. But I think if we take a
guideline of 300 feet. If we also take a guideline that if there is no other, if they don't have
access to some sort of a collector street, then if someone does happen to buy the 3 acres and
65
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
there's no development around, they need a drive.
Farmakes: Is that, that's really a separate issue for another point in time. I guess what I, my
concern is what we have here tonight or we're going to be voting on. The issue before us.
Harberts: I'm finding it difficult to support the recommendation because of that and it's not
the driveway, it's the whole process here. I mean.
Mancino: But sometimes that happens. Don't things come before us before we've had the
time to write down guidelines for it so what do we do, just not accept it? Or do we stop the
process and say let's develop guidelines?
Ledvina: We can bring in guidelines and you know, next time or whatever and just because
this one has some special treatment or, it's not special treatment but it's, the consideration of
the rules that we have at the time. That doesn't impact our future ordinance or guidelines. I
don't see that as a problem.
Scott: Are we ready to vote on the motion? Of course it's discussion.
Harberts: I know. Paul, is it feasible for staff to develop some kind of criteria or guide lines
on this? Are we looking at once in a. I know you have nothing to do, I know that.
Krauss: ...whether we agree with it or not. I don't know. I suppose it is. I have a hard
time differentiating you know because this lot and this lot or some other lot's something else.
Maybe there is a size criteria but the thing that came to mind to me is we've got Ches Mar
Farms that was approved. That's on a state highway where the state only allowed one curb
cut and we have a street combined driveway. I've got the developer wanting to go back
before the City Council who wants to build a...for sharing a driveway. I don't know how big
those lots are but I supposed they're the same. Same kind of size frame. I mean in this case
Carver County's somewhat more liberal than the State was. I don't know what to answer. It
would help though, I mean you appear to have a perception or the rationale that this one's
okay but you're not going to let other people do it in the future. You know it's not an
ordinance you're playing with. If it was an ordinance you were playing with, you couldn't do
it. You'd have to come up with a rationale for a variance. In this case it's kind of a
development principle and you do have the ability to waive it I suppose but it would be
useful if there was a rationale tied to it so the next time it comes up, we can say this is
different and this is the same.
Scott: Well the rationale as I see it, and in the last development that we made someone
basically give up the curb cut. That property had, that property was abutted a cul-de-sac or
66
•
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
an interior street. I think that was key. And then there is a guideline, I think we use a 300
feet between curb cuts. Something like that. And it didn't hit that requirement either. So
those are, that's the kind of rationale that I was pulling with. Adequate separation. It does
not abut an interior street. I think those are pretty straight forward. And the size of the
property doesn't enter into it.
Ledvina: The other thing to consider here is if, by our action tonight by denying that that
driveway forces the Songs to literally take and split it into two parcels and then go through
this whole rigamaroll just to get what they need, you know. Why force them into through
that process?
Scott: And I think the underlying thing that I'm picking up on that isn't said is that there's
an agreement between the Songs and these guys that they get their curb cut. You haven't
said that.
Farmakes: What I don't understand here again is that if, technically to help in the planning
issue, whether or not the Songs live there throughout their life or not, or another individual
who has a piece of property, if something, like a subdivision plan is submitted that shows
how that driveway would be utilized should the property be subdivided in the future, and I
don't know how the city can say, commit to that, but something like that, at least from a
planning standpoint would eliminate some of my apprehensive to having very large lots with
driveways that may make no sense in the future.
Krauss: There is an extensive track record of requiring a ghost plat. It's been a while since
we've seen one.
Mancino: And what's that?
Krauss: Well, where a plat has not been proposed but you have a concept of how streets can
be laid out in the area allotted and what's being proposed makes sense on that basis. You
know where it would be useful there too, I suppose to have something like that is, it's still
unclear to me what's going to happen across the street from this thing. Where do we want
to force a new street to be on the east side.
Mancino: But Prince isn't to the east of that new Song place.
Krauss: I don't know where it is exactly.
Mancino: No, it isn't. That's up further.
67
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Krauss: But it's not Davidson either. It's something inbetween.
Mancino: No, it's Marty. He has 21 acres and the next people have about 5 acres. And then
Prince is just a little south.
Farmakes: Don't you have an overhead picture showing the structure?
Terry Forbord: To address Mr. Farmakes' concern. Really the property that the Songs are
keeping for their estate, geographically should be planned and developed with the property to
the north. There's a wetland or it will be a mitigation area between the proposed cul-de-sac.
The mitigation area, this is actually going to be expanded but this is an illustration. This
mitigation area actually comes in through here. It's being expanded as part of the
development of this site. If you look at the topography in here, this site really kind of flows
more with this site. Someday those sites will probably develop and at that time, just like you
do when you entertain other plats, you will cause them to vacate their present access onto
Galpin when those roads, those lateral roads or street roads are being built within that
subdivision. And so that's when that, at that point in time would occur.
Krauss: That's true but I think Dave understands that the merit of the ghost platting is that
when we have a request to develop across the street, we know where to put that road and that
we don't have a standard situation where the Song driveway is here or over there. I mean
we're not asking that it be proposed but that at least it be looked at in concept.
Mancino: Terry, can you show us where Prince's home is?
Terry Forbord: Okay, here's the Song future homestead. Right across the street is another
home right there. His driveway is right here. And here is Mr. Carlson's driveway. And then
there's another driveway here and here. Our proposed street fits right about, let's see.
Where's the pump house? Okay, so our northerly street is here and the southerly street is
down here.
Harberts: Where's the Songs' driveway proposed?
Terry Forbord: Their future driveway?
Harberts: Yeah.
Terry Forbord: Their driveway would probably be in, this is kind of a wetland complex right
here. So their driveway would probably be right in this area. Between this general area.
68
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Krauss: We can take a little bit closer look at it but from that aerial, it looks like there's only
one option to build it.
Terry Forbord: As far as a health, safety and welfare issue. The County wouldn't allow that
to occur if they thought it was a health and safety, welfare issue. They wouldn't grant that
access onto that road. And that's another criteria they utilize...entertaining permit
applications.
Scott: Any more discussion? Okay, a motion to close the discussion?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close discussion on the motion. Chairman Scott
stated that discussion was closed.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Preliminary PUD #93-3 for 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single family lots,-
preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet.
2. Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided
for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet
for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be
reduced down to 20 feet where the developer can demonstrate that improved tree
preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are
required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory
structures. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks.
3. Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this number
of trees 21/2" or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in
the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved landscaping
plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to buffering requirements along
Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots." Trees to be selected from approved
city list of over story trees, minimum 21/2 diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod
required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of
building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for
internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval.
4. Provide copies of subdivision covenants and home owner association documents for
review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria
consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establish maintenance
69
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels.
5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat.
6. Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are
predicated upon the construction of this facility to accommodate some local needs,
financial guarantees ensuring its construction, must be posted. The association park will
be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary plat."
7. Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on
the "A" street alignment. Provide plans illustrating how wetland buffer areas are to
have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with
site work and subject to sufficient financial guarantees. Concurrent with final approval,
the applicant shall determine what wetland buffer monumentation is to be employed.
This monumentation shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered
by sufficient financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are
established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Restoration plans
to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E
streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide
protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required
wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1
ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wetland due to the applicant's failure to
identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant is responsible for providing
wetland mitigation for impacts stemming from the ultimate improvement of Galpin and
trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will assume responsibility for obtaining
the necessary permits for this activity."
8. Tree Preservation/Landscaping:
a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul-de-sac islands be
developed for approval.
b. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped buffer (and berming where feasible).
This feature must be significant enough to buffer direct views of the home sites from
the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is
mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, if the applicant wishes to use this
requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat,
additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide
vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas.
70
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code and be selected from
the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board.
d. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees.
e. All tree conservation areas to be protected by snow fence or otherwise satisfactorily
marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and
approved by the city before undertaking any grading of construction activity on the
site. Expand the tree conservation areas as recommended by staff.
9. Park and Trails:
Parks
a. The private/association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a
minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park
layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed
amenities. Furthermore, if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall
be transferred to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be
drafted into association documents.
b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application.
Trails
a. It is intended that the Galpin trail be constructed in the street right-of-way except
within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in
width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading
plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may
meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the
eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to
approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted
to areas west of the trail bench.
b. The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the
southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner preliminary plat as depicted on
Attachment #4. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling this
wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the
time of adjoining street construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by
the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer.
71
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said
trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of
building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/DolejsifTurner
applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of
approval associated with the,preliminary plat for the Johnson/DolejsifTurner
properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the
Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property are to be waived.
This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16
& 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicinity.
This recommendation is contingent upon the city acquiring a portion of the
Stockdale property for public park purposes within 45 days after August 24, 1993.
This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren
Brothers Construction is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is
acquired.
10. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12'
deck and 30' rear yard without intruding into any wetland buffer on the final plat.
11. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right-of-ways on Streets B, D
and G to a 60-foot wide right-of-way with the typical 31 foot street width. Streets H
and I to be a 50 foot right-of-way with a 28 foot street section. Front yard setbacks
for streets B, D and G shall be allowed to go to a 25 foot setback The use of
retaining walls and 3:1 slopes shall be allowed for Street H and I with maintenance
of the retaining walls to be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
12. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all
utilities located outside the public right-of-ways including drainage basins. The
minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an
improved surface over the east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the
sediment basin and Lake Harrison for maintenance vehicles. Access may be covered
with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff`.
13. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed
District, Health Department, MPCA, Carver County Highway Department, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers.
14. Storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with pond storage calculations
for storage of a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity, should be submitted to the City
72
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting.
15. At a minimum, deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard
when Street A and/or Street E is constructed. The applicant's engineer, Carver County
Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound
Galpin Boulevard at the intersection of A Street.
16. Fire hydrants shall be placed approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in
accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendation.
17. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or
provided with a wood-fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before Nov.
_ 15 each construction season. Areas where street and/or utility construction will occur
throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when
building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant
_ an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All disturbed areas
shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook.
18. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final
construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council
approval in conjunction with final platting. If the developer installs trunk sewer and
water improvements which is considered anything over an 8-inch pipe diameter, a credit
will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk
improvements which will be levied against the parcel. This credit amount will be
determined as the cost difference between the standard lateral pipe size (8-inch
diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement.
19. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to
guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting.
20. No lots shall take driveway access from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The
Song homestead shall gain access via a private driveway off of Galpin Boulevard or
County Road 117.
21. Street names submitted with the final plat are subject to staff approval.
22. The site grades adjacent to Galpin Boulevard shall be revised to be compatible with the
73
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail construction. In addition, no
berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Galpin Boulevard
right-of-way.
23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and mitigated to be contained within the
development to avoid its being impacted by street and trail construction.
24. Deleted.
25. The street grades shall be adjusted to conform to City ordinance which is between
0.50% and 7% except on H and E streets. A street shall be constructed to a 7 ton
section.
26. The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating that a street will be
extended to serve the parcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension
to the northwest shall be through the Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner property immediately to
the west.
27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A and
E streets, and the proposed cul-de-sac islands, are to be allowed subject to
incorporation of modifications requested by staff and to meet State Aid requirements.
28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City.
29. Street F to be constructed up to the south property line. It shall be provided with a
temporary turnaround and a signed barricade indicating "This street to be extended in
the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain-of-title of all lots in the -
vicinity.
30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a
width of 20 feet, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround
acceptable to the Fire Marshal.
31. Block 5, Lot 7 shall be revised to ensure that a 40' setback is provided from the creek.
Additionally, it must be demonstrated that a wetland buffer of at least 10' plus a setback
from the buffer of at least 40', will be provided." Staff will take the developer's
comments under advisement between the Planning Commission and City Council
meetings.
All voted in favor, except Farmakes and Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 2.
Scott: Jeff, if you could state your reason for opposition.
74
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Farmakes: I'd just repeat. My opposition is not to the proposal itself on the Song property,
which was my only objection of the motion. But how we're arriving at the conclusion. I
think we're arguing two different things here. One is the actual request and what I'm arguing
is how we're, the rationale we're using for it and I would like it to be consistent and that the
rationale be consistent as to how we apply that.
Scott: Okay. And Diane your thoughts?
Harberts: Ditto.
Scott: Your thoughts are similar?
Harberts: Very similar.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, SECTION 20-57,
REGARDING EXPIRATION OF PLATTING VARIANCES.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Do we need to discuss? This isn't a public hearing item so, do we need to discuss the
recommendation?
Ledvina: I don't have any comments.
Krauss: Well actually it is a public hearing...Zoning Ordinance amendment.
Scott: Okay. The public hearing is open. Let the record show that there are no members of
the public here. I think I can boldly close the public hearing.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Okay, do I have a motion?
Harberts moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council approve Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 20-57 to read as follows:
Section 20-57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for non-use.
The violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance
except a variance approved in conjunction with platting, shall become void within one (1)
year following the issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in
75
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
reliance thereon.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated October 6, 1993 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Scott: Paul, Administrative Section. Is it something that we should be reading? Do we need
to take any action on this? I noticed that we got the latest and greatest on the Frank Beddor
situation.
Mancino: What is it?
Scott: Well, he filed suit on behalf of himself and I think a couple of other parties, filed suit
on the City Council and the Mayor because of not doing an Environment, or because of the
street.
Krauss: I'm not exactly sure what the suit is about. We haven't done anything yet.
Scott: In reading it...it appears that it's frivolous because Mr. Beddor is not technically a
resident of the state of Minnesota.
Krauss: He's a resident of Florida so.
Scott: So he can't file suit. I looked through this and I went, well that's interesting. I didn't
even know that. But anyway, what are the key items in here that we need to, except for that.
Krauss: Oh, one interesting thing. Moon Valley. Another continuing saga...We seem to
have gotten a lot of what we wanted...The different avenue is the Pollution Control Agency,
which frankly hasn't been very tough on them before. I serve on a lot of boards and task
forces one of which is on the Minnesota River project and I kept on raising this at meetings.
Hey, here's a good example of the problems...we've been in court for years. We're at our
wits end as to what we can do about it as a city. Well they were just going to give it a
blanket, it's called...blanket kind of a thing. It's a simple one page form. You write checks
on it... Well apparently the owner Tom Zwiers stiffed MnDot staff a few times and never
showed up for meetings. There was a major blow out down there this summer.
Scott: Is that when the stuff went across the highway and into the wetland?
Krauss: Yeah. Well, we called up the Fish and Wildlife Service and the PCA the next
morning and kind of got them out there to see it. They were horrified at the damage that was
caused and in view of the fact that he never took them up on the blanket...they said, well we
76
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
withdrew that offer. This is now an individual permit which is a much more rigorous set of
criteria. We tried to get the Judge to require that we have engineered ponds and occasional...
The Judge so far wouldn't let us do it.
Scott: That's Judge Canning?
Krauss: Yeah. He thinks that we're going further than we should with a grandfathered use
and we're overstepping our bounds. Well, the Pollution Control Agency just is requiring that
they have an engineer on the site twice a year. That they do monthly water quality testing.
That they meet NURP standards. And if they fail to do so, that they do it at the risk of...plus
the PCA's doing the enforcement and we don't have to. So I think this is kind of an
interesting turn of events and I hope it's indicative of cooperation...
Ledvina: Paul, I would suggest that you have somebody watch or identify what the
conditions of the permit are in terms of the items and the trigger dates and also that you
follow up with MPCA staff. That they are enforcing their requirements of their permit
because in my experience, they have these wonderful restrictive permits that protect the
environment but they don't get enforced. If you have somebody that's there letting them
know that they're watching, they'll do a better job. So just.
Krauss: Your caution is well taken. And we're still in court so we do have a role to play.
Scott: Okay. I think we can forego the open discussion on the redevelopment options for
Chanhassen. The bank/post office. That's I think, what you have here is pretty good. I
think we can read through that but my guess is we're going to see something on...
Ledvina: Come to the HRA meeting tomorrow if you want to hear about it.
Scott: Yeah, the land swap. I guess the bottom line is that because of the Klein's buying the
bank from the Mithune's and the value of the two lots that the city is eyeing for
condemnation for city center park, is throwing kind of, not a monkey wrench but they're
concerned that that's going to affect the bank transaction.
Krauss: Right.
Scott: And they'd like to have someplace, when they expand. I guess the Klein's are
planning on expanding the bank and they want to place the park, that's not going to happen if
city center park goes. The post office property may be, it seems like it's.
Harberts: What's number 8 all about?
Scott: Planning Commission goals?
77
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Krauss: Yeah. We can put this on another agenda...this time each year. We pass them up to
the City Council in a work session. I also usually take my staff out to lunch and ask them
what do we want to get done the upcoming year...We're so swamped with subdivisions and
site plans that...
Ledvina: Are we going to have the same level of subdivisions coming our way the next 6
months?
Krauss: I'm afraid...
Mancino: We will have a lull or the same degree? I'm sorry, I didn't.
Krauss: I don't see a lull coming.
Farmakes: I would like to make a recommendation on that. If it's indicative that we're
going to get last minute information on these developments, that we come up with a criteria
for postponing them until they're sufficiently discussed. This is the second time in a row
Lundgren has brought these 30 list of differentiation between you and them and you see it the
day before. I don't think that there's anything wrong with you dealing within your
capabilities to do that in a manner where you're not running around pulling your hair out
trying to do that. It didn't seem to me that that's what an attorney would refer to as
reasonable time to respond. And I know I feel like it's restricted access. Like they're trying
to pull something to get a response from me without having the support and consideration of
the staff. So to me if you need more time to do that, I think that should be looked at and I
know that you have a time guide line that you use when the work comes in and you'd like to
get it back out again. But if that needs to be expanded, I think you should do that.
Krauss: Well, when I came here we expanded it from 2 weeks to 4 weeks. But you still,
that means we have another week we don't have to start on the thing so we can finish up
something else. Extending it probably wouldn't be useful. I find those kind of tactics as
frustrating as you do. On the other hand, Terry's position is he doesn't get a copy of the
staff report until Friday or Monday. He has no opportunity to give his position.
Farmakes: Then to me, that's fine. But if you have all the information that you need before
you come to us and you use your criteria or like other businesses do. When I have the
finished item in my hand, I can tell you specifically how long it's going to take to make it
and what it's going to cost. If you change that, if you change that criteria, then we re-
establish the time guide line and some of these criteria for many of these things, I'm sure
there's a lot of factors involved in developments of this size. When you don't have answers
and you don't, if you don't have a reasonable time to negotiate these issues, then we
shouldn't be seeing that stuff.
Krauss: Well and 9 times out of 10 we can deal with things and I don't have any problem
78
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
with a developer taking exception to a condition. The thing that I personally found very
frustrating, and it probably showed in my...but was when somebody is changing nuance or
inflection of what I say.
Farmakes: And verb changers, yeah.
Krauss: I mean I've had 17 years of experience in writing these things. They mean
something. They're supposed to have some kind of a legal standing because sooner or later
you're going to have contract language or go to court. Changing shalls and maybe if you feel
like it, if it's a good thing to do, doesn't work and I get very frustrated when I have a write a
whole second staff report and meet with him 2 or 3 times when I don't have enough time to
do other work for something that didn't need to be done in the first place. That's what I find
frustrating. I didn't take exception to you know, the driveway concern or the right-of-ways.
Those are all legit. But I don't think it needs to be done in a format where it takes 2 1/2
hours of your time to talk through every phrase and every word, and that's what happened at
the first meeting and it happened the last time.
Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. I think it's a disservice to the other people who are here
who have their stuff presentable and have worked those issues out with you and they wind up
waiting 4 hours when they should be waiting 2 hours. In this case I think it was Centex thing
that we saw tonight that had to come back again simply because of that, I think it was 31
issues that he had and wanted to moderate here in this forum and I just, I emphatically
believe that this isn't the forum to negotiate 31 issues that he had.
Mancino: Yeah, it was like I wanted to table it even before it got started.
Farmakes: Oh absolutely. Absolutely.
Mancino: There was no reason to sit there and listen to the whole presentation knowing that
we weren't going to be able to respond.
Farmakes: What I'm saying is if you have an increasing amount of pressure from the
development's requiring response in the same amount of time, it seems to me that
something's got to give.
Krauss: Well I think that's a real big concern I have though because this, we used the down
time with the recession and lack of MUSA availability to do lots of creative things. Write
new ordinances. Develop new environmental approaches. Develop a comp plan and we're
kind of a treadmill now. We're going to 11:00 and 12:00 at night processing new things. I
don't even know when to schedule a Highway 5 because we need to get it back to here.
Farmakes: And that to me is far more of a priority.
79
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993
Mancino: Yeah, that's one thing I'd like to get on the schedule again. To go a bus trip and
do the Highway 5.
Scott: Can we adjourn and take it off line?
Harberts moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. AH voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
80
ONGOING ISSUES
REVISED NOVEMBER 3, 1993
IS SUES STATUS
1. 1995 Study Area (North) and Hwy. 5 Materials presented to PC. Public hearings
Corridor Study scheduled for late fall 1993.
2. 1995 Study Area (South) Assigned to Planning Commission staff.
Work to be initiated as time commitments
allow
3. Sign Ordinance Draft ordinance has been completed and will
be reviewed by the Hwy. 5 Task Force in
May. CC asked that the committee look at
limiting the number of sign boards on
building exteriors for office buildings. To
be completed by January 1994.
4. Tree Protection Ordinance, Mapping Work completed on upgrade parking lot
of significant vegetative areas landscaping. Work on going on boulevard
plantings and tree preservation standards.
5. Shoreland Ordinance Staff is currently working on draft of the
ordinance. Initial comments delivered to
Minnesota DNR. Will place on upcoming
PC agenda.
6.* PC input in Downtown Planning and The city is embarking on a 2002 Vision Plan
Traffic Study for the CBD. Meeting scheduled November
1. The Planning Commission will be
notified.
7. Review of Architectural Standards to Hwy. 5 Task Force is working on this issue.
Promote High Quality Design Will likely influence what is done in balance
of city.
8. Bluff Creek Corridor Greenway Park and Recreation Commission is
undertaking update of the recreational
element of the Comprehensive Plan. Bluff
1
Creek issues to be dealt with in this format.
Working with Minnesota DOT to install
bridges over creek for Hwy. 5. Recreational
easements being taken over the creek in
vicinity of Laurent farm near Pioneer Trail
under proposed platting. Land for school
site and trail south of Hwy. 5 and north of
Timberwood acquired by City Council
action.
9. Temporary uses, sales - new PC reviewed. Staff given direction to make
ordinance changes and bring back in November.
10. Sexually oriented businesses Scheduled for City Council review.
11. Open Space Zoning Requested by PC.
12. Upgrade landscaping ordinance Completed
standards to meet criteria established
during Target Review.
13. Joint meeting with Park and Requested by PC.
Recreation Commission on natural
area preservation and Park
Comprehensive Plan.
14. Review land use designation of Recommendations for changing
parcel located west of Hwy. 41 and comprehensive plan in this area are
south of Arboretum. contained in the Hwy. 5 plan.
15. Auto related uses. CC determined that new district not
appropriate but wants lot by lot discussion of
available sites and how best to control/
influence auto related uses.
16. Local/Collector Street Plan PC requested discussion of potential
developing a map and plan.
17. Existing use zoning - BF District PC requested discussion.
* Change in status since last report.
2
,2,
t4s ,7., CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
of, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
s
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
DATE: October 27, 1993
SUBJ: Review Draft - Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study
As we have discussed in a previous meeting, there are three components to the Highway 5 •
Corridor Study:
1. Land use recommendations
2. Design standards
3. Road alignments and the EA document for the northern access boulevard
Please bring your copy of Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study to the meeting. We will
be reviewing as many chapters as possible that evening.
Wm.
MON
•••10
sm.
OEM
O ng
d m,
•=.1
3,
CITY of
101 111 C HANEASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
II
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director
DATE: August 9, 1993
SUBJ: 1994 Planning Department Goals and Budget Request
BACKGROUND
Over the past four years I have traditionally taken the opportunity presented by the budget
process to update the City Council on progress towards meeting our annual goals.
1993 has been an unusually hectic year. The Planning Department workload increased
dramatically due in large part to the large number of new developments applications. This type
of activity runs in cycles depending largely on economic trends. However, it is clear that
"Chanhassen's time as a major player" in the Twin Cities region, has clearly arrived. We are
clearly viewed as a desirable place in which to live and work due in large part to the support of
the City Council's major efforts to maintain our quality of life. While we are subject to state and
national economic trends and upon the availability of sufficient developable land (i.e. future
MUSA line amendments), the current pace of development is likely to persist.
At the same time, the Planning Department remains committed to a variety of short and long
term projects including:
• Recycling
• Southwest Metro Transit
• Senior Support Services and Senior Housing Development
• Permit Review and Code Enforcement
• SWMP Program
• Hwy. 5 Project
• Representing the City's interests before a variety of regional and state agencies
• Tree Board
1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget
August 9, 1993
Page 2
1993 has also been a year of considerable upheaval for our department. Jo has left us after 9
years of committed service. Her experience will be difficult to replace. Secondly, on the
positive side, we have finally filled the Water Resources Coordinator position that was outlined
in the original 1990 Surface Water Managing Program. Managed jointly by the Planning and
Engineering Departments, this program is already paying large dividends in protecting our
environment and improving service and responsiveness to our residents.
The last departmental upheaval is of a more personal nature. I am writing this memo in Lima,
Peru with our daughter Rachel. God willing, by the time you read this she will be home with
us in Minnesota. The adoption process has directly and indirectly absorbed a lot of my time in
the past few months, while my commitment to Chanhassen remains strong, my absence has
contributed to some delays and increased work load for my staff. I appreciate the support I have
received from the Council and look forward to resuming my normal responsibilities. Special
thanks are due to Kate, Sharmin and Vicki who kept things together while I was gone.
PROGRESS FORWARDS 1993 GOALS
The following is a summary of the department's 1993 goals and mid-year progress:
1. Complete the Highway 5 Corridor Study. At the time of writing the Highway 5 Study
is nearing completion. We expect to have it finished by early fall. Planning Commission
review and hearings are being scheduled for September 15 and
More importantly, the project is already starting to pay big dividends. Quite simply, the
way in which we do business and the City's expectation of new development in the
corridor has already been raised. The project has provided a means for city residents to
begin to get motivated in the corridor future. It has helped us to establish a stronger
working relationship with Minnesota Department of Transportation, one that will provide
a large amount of financial support for completion of the northern access boulevard. At
the time of writing, it even appears that the study will have provided a mechanism for
positively responding to mitigating impacts from development.
The city has also developed an excellent and wide-spread reputation in the area of urban
design. This was evident in our receiving a nearly $300,000 ISTEA Grant to construct
the pedestrian overpass. This one grant alone will more than offset the cost of the entire
project and environmental assessment.
In summary, we believe the project represented an excellent use of city resources.
2. Complete the Surface Water Management Program planning effort and establish the
program on a permanent footing. Here again we have an example of a program that
is paying in large dividends even before it is completed. Again, it has changed the way
1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget
August 9, 1993
Page 3
we do business. It insures that new development is much more sensitive to protecting our
surface water and wetland resources. It also gives us an understanding of quality
problems that have been occurring in our lakes and gives us a means to positively
respond and correct them.
The plan will be completed on schedule and is to be delivered to the City Council this
fall. This past year we began undertaking remediation projects around the city. Our
Public Works Department has developed a good working knowledge of the program and
have expanded their responsibilities under it. We have also added an in-house coordinator
for the program, who is jointly managed by the Planning and Engineering Departments.
In short, we are poised to make a major positive impact on the quality of our natural
environment.
3. Senior Commission/Senior Center. Planning staff continues to provide support for the
Senior Commission as their role in providing services grows. A noteworthy
accomplishment in 1993 is the opening of the Senior Answer Line. Operating out of our
center it is a joint effort of the City and Carver County. With a county funded
coordinator and volunteers, it is a one-stop information service. Sharmin Al-Jaff
deserves the recognition for bringing this off.
One of our focuses in 1993 has been on the preparing the ground work to undertake a
Senior Housing project in the CBD. The feasibility study was completed and reviewed
by the Commission, City Council and HRA. The probable project has been defined based
upon market demand. We are aware of budgeting constraints with the TIF program, we
are seeking ways to minimize direct city cost without losing management control to insure
that the housing continues to respond to the needs of our residents. We expect to
conclude this phase of the project in the next few months with construction possible for
next year.
4. CDBG program/maintain eligibility. Staff has been working intensively with the mayor
on this project all year. We have made considerable progress and have apparently been
included in the 1994 funding allocation.
5. Computerize departmental functions. Is an on-going goal for the past few years and we
continue to make progress along with other departments. Currently, we are all using the
PC's to draft memos and reports. The SWMP modeling is on disk and will be up and
running at City Hall shortly. Other uses are expected by next year.
6. Continue to enhance recycling efforts. The City continues to maintain an effective and
expanding program. Recent appliance and hazardous materials drop-off days were highly
successful. A study of city coordinated pickup service to insure responsiveness and
reduce damage to local streets are currently in process.
1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget
August 9, 1993
Page 4
7. Continue the need to upgrade, revise and improve the zoning ordinance. This is an
on-going goal from year to year. We have implemented numerous minor changes. Major
amendments include the wetlands ordinance, improved landscaping standards, sign
ordinance and upcoming Hwy. 5 standards.
8. Strive to maintain and improve Chanhassen's image as a progressive community that
sets high standards for development. Maintain good working relationships with
developers, residents and out state agencies to ensure that city goals and policies Can
be achieved. This is an on-going goal and one that occupies much of my time as well as
my staff's. We continue to strive to be responsive to inquires and concerns raised by
residents. We serve on a large number of regional and state task forces, committees, etc.
We have developed a regional reputation for being innovative in the areas of urban design
and environmental protection. I believe the goal is being met but continuing efforts are
required since this is not something that can be.
PROPOSED 1994 GOALS
1. Implement Hwy. 5 Plan. While the plan and ordinance have been completed, they must
be refined during the review process, given formal public hearings and adopted. The
Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended to incorporate the document and revised land
use plan. The zoning ordinance also needs to be amended. It is likely that we will have
to process several city-initiated revisions to the zoning map to bring it into compliance
with the Hwy. 5 Plan's recommendations. There are a number of long-term tasks to go
along with the plan including working with new developments to bring them into
compliance and working with MnDOT and others on issues related to the highway and
access boulevards. One important factor to watch is the 1995 Study Area on Hwy. 5.
You have already received one request to bring it into the MUSA line and will probably
be getting others. It is clear that the City is growing faster than anticipated and that there
will be a need to consider bringing this area into the MUSA line within the next 12-24
months. It is impossible to anticipate how involved a request the Metropolitan Council
will demand at that time but we should be prepared for a major work effort.
Related projects to be undertaken in 1994 include building the Hwy. 5 pedestrian
overpass. We secured a $280,000 ISTEA grant for the project and must start construction
in 1994. At this point, project management and public review of bridge designs are the
main tasks. Secondly, we are working with Southwest Metro Transit arid the American
Legion to develop plans for redevelopment of the site. This would involve building a
new legion hall, park and ride lot and motel/restaurant. The City is acting as the project
facilitator and is meeting with the parties and area residents. In 1994, we expect to know
if this is feasible and has merit. We expect to be able to bring it back to the HRA/City
Council for review. —
1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget
August 9, 1993
Page 5
2. Implement SWMP. This is another program that is winding up its planning phase and
needs to be re-tooled for the long haul to address the City's water quality and wetland
protection concerns. We are in a good position to proceed based upon the quality of our
plan and our staff. Funding for SWMP remains a problem. I have told you for three
years that the program had sufficient funding for the planning and initial phase but was
inadequate to cover construction, land acquisition, etc. The program was initially funded
at 60% of staff's initial 5 year request and due to an error by the original consultant, we
are only getting 60% of that. I expected that we would finish 1993 with the SWMP fund
nearly zeroed out. This did not occur for several reasons. We did not bring our Surface
Water Coordinator on until mid-year which saved on salary but also significantly delayed
project development, educational programs, water quality testing, etc. We had also
scheduled several construction projects on Lake Lucy and Lake Riley which were delayed
due to delays in subdivisions that the project was linked to and an inability of staff to
manage and promote projects due to work load. We expect to make up for lost ground
in 1994 and the issue of correcting SWMP rates needs to be addressed if the program is
to reach its goals.
3. Senior Housing Development. For several years the City has been studying the
feasibility of building senior housing in our community. This has been a goal of the
Senior Commission for at least 3 years. We have completed a feasibility study that
defined the need and type of housing that is required and are currently completing a
financial study of how best to attain what is needed. A public/private partnership to build
a 70 unit, 2-3 story project with underground parking in the CBD seems the likely
outcome. Things are moving forward and it seems likely that we may at least be able to
lock up a site in 1994 and potentially secure a developer and initiate the project.
4. Continue work to expand senior services. In 1993, we were able to start up the Senior
Answer Line. In 1994 we wish to continue to understand and meet senior needs in
related areas.
5. CDBG. Now that we have reached our goal of securing funding into the future, we need
to get back down to business regarding project development and program operations. It
seems likely that senior support services and construction to meet ADA requirements are
likely to use the lion's share of funding for the next few years.
6. Recycling/Organized Collection. The City is currently in the process of completing
Phase I of the organized collection study. This was designed to see if the idea had merit
from the standpoint of minimizing neighborhood disruption, street maintenance, cost and
levels of service. The idea seems to have some merit and the Council will soon be asked
if they wish to proceed with Phase II which could culminate in contract development and
program administration. If we proceed with phase II, this will largely be a 1994 project.
1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget
August 9, 1993
Page 6
With the exception of this project, the recycling program is largely in-place and requires
relatively little oversight.
7. Tree Preservation. The Tree Board has been working to develop improved preservation
ordinances and is nearing the end of this task. For 1994, I have set a goal of putting the
program in a more permanent footing. I am seeking an increase of funding up to
$30,000. This will allow us to regularly hire a forestry intern. At relatively little cost,
we have been able to use this person to more effectively review and manage
developments while responding to many resident concerns regarding their trees. I do not
see making this a full time position in the near future but want to explore the potential
of sharing this person and related costs with other communities. Secondly, I would like
to be able to start an organized reforestation effort on public lands and ROW with the
additional funding.
8. Environmental Commission. I am proposing that the Council constitute an
Environmental Commission that would replace the work of the SWMP Task Force,
Recycling Committee and Tree Board. Each of these groups have reached a point where
their work load has diminished. We still need them for important input but they would
not convene with enough frequency to be consistent or reliable. Secondly, managing
three boards on top of all our other responsibilities is extremely difficult for myself and
my staff. I am therefore proposing to combine their responsibilities in an environmental
commission that would meet monthly and standing Commission members would be
appointed by the Mayor and Council and would serve terms of office. They would
provide the required continuity for the three programs and I believe adequately guide and
direct them. I am recommending that there be 7 members, 1 from the Planning
Commission, 1 from the Park and Recreation Commission and the balance selected from
interested residents.
9. South 1995 Study Area and 212/169 Corridor. Since we adopted the Comprehensive
Plan we have had a goal of defining land uses in the two 1995 Study Areas. With the
Hwy. 5 Plan we have met this goal for the north area. We need to launch a comparable
effort for the south one located between Lyman and Pioneer. Additionally, the Planning
Commission has long been concerned with the old commercial strip along Hwy. 169/212.
Sandwiched between the Minnesota River bluff line and the National Wildlife Refuge,
this area contains a series of marginal land uses. We are proposing to combine both
studies. Work load permitting, we want to initiate this project with the Planning
Commission in 1994.
10. Hwy. 101. The City has been working on a project to define the ultimate alignment of
Hwy. 101 between Hwy. 5 and new Hwy. 212 that we expect to complete by early 1994.
Additionally, we have started a process of working with Carver and Hennepin Counties,
Eden Prairie and MnDOT on the ultimate disposition of Hwy. 101. This will likely be -
1994 Planning Department Goals/Budget
August 9, 1993
Page 7
a long-term program that will culminate in the improvement of the roadway and turn back
to County authority. This program should begin in earnest in 1994.
CITY T
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Krauss
FROM: Bob Generous
DATE: October 21, 1993
SUBJ: Bream Townhouses, City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting on
Monday October 25, 1993
I have reviewed the staff report for the above referenced project. No action on the part of the
City should be necessary. No negative impacts on Chanhassen can be anticipated.
Background
The site is located east of the City of Chanhassen north of Pioneer Trail in Eden Prairie. The
project is one phase in the Bearpath Planned Unit Development. Originally approved for 45
townhouses, the current proposal is for 29 townhouses on 6.17 acres of land at a density of
4.7 units per acre. The current zoning of the property , RM-6.5, permits 6.7 units per acre.
Summary/Analysis
The project includes subdivision of 11 lots. One of the lots will be common open space. The
other ten lots will be subdivided after the sale of each unit by condominium law. A variance
for lot size is requested to facilitate the clustering of units to preserve green area. A
corresponding lot frontage variance is also requested. Front, rear, and side yard variances to
permit zero lot line development are also requested. 59 excess parking spaces are provided.
There are no significant trees located on site and the proposed grading plan is consistent with
the grading plan approved for the PUD. The applicant is proposing a landscaping plan that
exceeds the minimum requirements fivefold, based on Eden Prairie standards.
Sewer and water services are available to the site. Stormwater runoff is pretreated in NURP
ponds before discharging into the Lake Riley watershed.
ttttt� ��
fes-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC q '`}
co IA-
HEARING r
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 04.
Monday, October 25, 1993 - 7:00 PM
City Hall - 7600 Executive Drive 'ff,
srd
PROJECT: Bream Townhouses
DEVELOPER: Bream Builders S
LOCATION: West of Dell Road and north?,
of Pioneer Trail k�
LOCATION MAP
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about the development of (description) project
proposed in your area. The technical request of the City is:
PUD Concept Review on 419 acres.
PUD District Review on 6.71 acres with waivers
Zoning District Amendment in the RM-6.5 Zoning District
Preliminary Plat of 6.71 acres into 11 lots
Site Plan Review on 6.71 acres.
WHAT HAPPENS AT THE MEETING: During the meeting, the Planning Commission
Chairman will lead the public hearing through the following
steps: 1) The Developer will present plans on the project; 2) The Planning Staff will give a report; 3)
Residents will be asked comments; and 4) After receiving all this information, the Commission will discuss -.
the request. If the Planning Commission determines there is adequate information, input, and analysis of the
development, they may make a recommendation to the City Council.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
If you want to talk to someone about the proposed project, please contact Michael Franzen, the planner on
the project, at 937-2262. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to submit one copy to the
Community Development Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the EDEN PRAIRIE NEWS on October 14, 1993.
7600 Executive Drive o Eden Prairie, MN 55334-3677 o Telephone(612)937-2262
(The exact legal description for the properly is on file in the City Offices.)
BARB\NOTICES`,BREAM.RES
;,_,„.., ., ,,,v) .. „..„...L._ r .r) shttivis 3 -- / • . / \
.‘,-. 1... ri) Fa%
•
• luurS,,
; 'r ,i ,4, t 4 � 1�1�1�.�ii
"•
•
�I - ►t M!tli,',- fi I il' •v
IN
1���YY�'�-'ll/ + / /
� n S o9
•* rte,_
. tLe__r.e,j,_ :
v , ON
e_
... 4
1.....„..i.........e... .
7.7 uril
t : '
d 1-0- l� g g • d 3btObd M3c7 1
Li OPO. ��.e Al. • H
J ppW 1
,i .•..,,,,,,,„\i„.;,, 2ri1 r • -i II� _
I.
.b ..e1i/
• ' Off'
igtt 1 6 ,./Si Ei
ileOL•i •
11 Q MaN \.:� t
P C
'''i.-- 1..-,-`7•' • .imeklatelvii 'IP' ' .•.- (
"A.--"'
� E • J
01 , V
M I - \ L • '
f Cry Cp .�)S' � {%„�, \ •
.,•4 ',7... 7 ot.- ,. • • if•\ I
I7i • 'S\ 1
-\ (,'' • . -4-`11k. , l'• 1\
� A , i 4
..>'•:-...«)...1al Q2 .. \.�t W W
— - I----- r..,.�., _� ,
0 II1. ,:y • 83AdVD / , .r4r
' - - - - - -
0
O N3SSVHNVHD
0 0 0 � . O
m •0 ItCD CV
•0) 0
w
1 u- 1 1 • _ I
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
DATE: October 22, 1993
SUBJECT: Bream Townhouses
APPLICANT: Bream Builders
FEE OWNER: Bearpath Limited Partnership
LOCATION: West of new Dell Road and North of Pioneer Trail
REQUEST: 1. PUD Concept Review on 419 acres.
2. PUD District Review on 6.71 acres with waivers for
minimum lot size and setback. _
3. Zoning District Amendment in the RM-6.5 Zoning District
on 6.71 acres. _
4. Preliminary Plat of 6.71 acres into 11 lots.
5. Site Plan Review on 6.71 acres.
1
Staff Report
Bream Townhouses
October 22, 1993
BACKGROUND
This site is currently zoned RM-6.5, multi-family. This site was approved for 45 townhomes
as part of the Bearpath Planned Unit Development in July of 1993. The zoning was conditioned
upon the Developer returning to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval of
detailed plans including architecture, landscaping, grading, and drainage.
SITE PLAN
The site plan depicts the construction of 29 townhome units on 6.17 acres at a density of 4.7
dwelling units per acre. The RM-6.5 zoning district permits up to 6.7 units per acre.
Access to the townhome units is by private driveway off Bearpath South. The minimum setback
required between the curb and the garage is 25 feet. This will provide enough room for parking
of vehicles without extending into the driveway.
The site plan shows a total of 136 parking spaces. (The amount of parking required is 77 parking
spaces, 58 based on 2 spaces/unit and 19 guest spaces.)
PRELIMINARY PLAT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS
The project is proposed to be subdivided into 11 outlots. Outlot K will be common open space.
Outlots A - J will be the location-of the townhome buildings which will be subdivided after the
sale of each unit by condominium law. Lots in the RM-6.5 zoning district must be 13,000 sq.
ft. with 90 feet of street frontage. None of the proposed outlots for the townhome buildings
meet this requirement. A Planned Unit Development waiver from the minimum requirement of
13,000 square feet and a waiver from the minimum street frontage requirement of 90 feet is
required. Since the density of the project is less than the maximum allowable in the zoning
district, and the purpose of clustering the townhome project was to preserve site features
elsewhere within the total PUD, the request for waivers are reasonable and should be granted
by the City.
In addition, front, rear and sideyard setback waivers are required. The setback waivers will be
from 30 feet to 0 feet for the front yard, and from 15 feet to 0 feet for the side yard, and
from 20 feet to 0 feet for the rear yard. Waivers from setback requirements in townhome
projects are typical and have historically been granted by the City. The request for setback
waivers are reasonable based upon the low density of the project and the use of cluster housing
helps preserve site features elsewhere within the PUD.
2
Staff Report
Bream Townhouses
October 22, 1993
GRADING
There are no existing significant trees on this site. The grading plan is consistent with the
grading plan approved with the Planned Unit Development Concept.
)BUILDING ARCHITECTURE
The buildings are proposed to be constructed out of primarily stucco with wood trim. These are
acceptable exterior materials allowed in the RM-6.5 zoning district. The maximum building
height allowed in the zoning district is 40 feet. The highest point on the building measures 38
feet.
LANDSCAPING
The amount of landscaping required is based on 1 caliper inch for every 320 square feet of
building. The caliper inch requirement is 290 inches. The total number of caliper inches
proposed is 1389 inches. The caliper inches beyond the code requirement will be credited
towards total tree replacement required for the Bearpath Planned Unit Development.
UTILITIES - STORM WATER RUNOFF
Sewer and water will be available in Bearpath South cul-de-sac. Storm water runoff from this
site will be channeled through pretreatment ponds scattered throughout the Planned Unit
Development. There are 27 pretreatment ponds, pretreating storm water from the streets and the
golf course before discharge into wetlands, Riley Creek, and Lake Riley.
CONCLUSION
•
The project is consistent with the PUD Concept and the zoning for townhomes. The PUD
Concept approved this site for 45 townhome units. The project is 29 units. 'The project meets
the required parking and landscaping. Sewer and water service is available. Storm water from
this site will be pretreated by a NURP pond. Planned Unit Development Waivers are required
for lot size, street frontage and building setback. These waivers are reasonable based on the low
density of the project, and the clustering of the units in this open, relatively flat area of the site
is part of the PUD density transfer to preserve wetlands and trees elsewhere on the property.
3
Staff Report
Bream Townhouses
October 22, 1993
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend approval of the PUD Concept, PUD District Review with waivers,
zoning district amendment, site plan review, and preliminary plat based on plans dated October
22, 1993 subject to the Staff Report dated October 22, 1993 and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for
review and approval by the City Engineer.
B. Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review
and approval by the Watershed District.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee.
4
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
October 21, 1993
Mr. and Mrs. David Nickolay
8500 Tigua Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nickolay:
This is in response to your letter dated October 17, 1993. I am sorry you feel that staff has not
responded to your suggestions and needs. However, on behalf of all staff members involved in
the Mission Hills project, I can safely say that we have devoted many hours of our very busy
schedules to the residents of Rice Lake Manor to answer questions they mien have. •
On many occasions, I met in my office with your neighbors, Mrs. Joanne Larson and Mr. David
Nagel, to answer questions about the development. I have always made myself available by
telephone and as you know, we have spoken on three occasions to respond to some of your
questions.
After our October 18, 1993, telephone conversation, when you requested that I respond to your
questions in writing, I informed you that I would send you a copy of the staff report where many
of the issues that you had raised had been addressed. You are still requesting that I respond in
writing to your concerns which are as follows:
1. This type of High Density Development is too high for this area of Chanhassen.
In preparing the year 2000 guide plan and comprehensive plan, this area was studied in
detail before it was designated as a mixed commercial/high, medium, and low density
residential.
2. There is an inadequate transition between the proposed development and Rice Lake
Manor.
The applicant has reduced the number of single family lots from 18 to 16 lots separating
Rice Lake Manor subdivision from the higher density units. Also, the lots abutting Rice
Lake Manor have been increased in size from 15,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet.
Mr. and Mrs. David Nickolay
October 21, 1993
Page 2
3. There are not enough parks provided for the number of people.
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application and determined that the
area to the east of Rice Lake Manor is guided for a future park. At this time, they felt
no need to acquire any additional park land and have recommended approval of the plan.
Plans have been revised to include the staff requested private park.
4. A large portion of the proposed plan is based on the new Highway 212 which may
never be built.
Highway 212 has been in the planning stage for decades and as you know, funding
limitations have again delayed construction. However, the Environmental Impact
Statement has been completed and accepted. Construction at the east end is scheduled
to start in November, 1996. In any event, development at this site is not contingent upon
the highway. Rather, it is consistent with city plans. Construction of any commercial
component is more closely linked to community and neighborhood needs than to the
highway. No construction is being proposed for this area at this time and its development
schedule remains open.
5. The current Highway 101 is not equipped to handle the traffic from this type of
development.
Highway 101 is a state route. The city has little legal right to prevent development based
upon its condition or status when we are making the developer liable for safety
improvements such as turn lanes. Land is being set aside for the future upgrading of
Hwy. 101. The city is also working with other agencies to promote its upgrading, but this
does not appear to be likely in the near term.
As I have stated before, I am always available by telephone and will always return calls. Also,
as I offered on the telephone, I will be glad to meet with you and your neighborhood to explain
the planning process and the steps required to approve an application. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Planner I
pc: Planning Commission
City Council
CITY OF
44:°4
. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
October 19, 1993
•
Mr. Douglas A. Hall
Supervisor, Permits Unit
Industrial Section/Water Quality Division
Mn Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul. MN 55155-4194
Dear Mr. Hall:
As the Planning Director for the City of Chanhassen, I received a copy of the Draft NPDES/SD Permit MN
0061662 for Moon Valley Aggregates. I have also had an opportunity to discuss this permit at length with
Dan Wells, who is on your staff.
On behalf of the City, I want to voice our support for the permit and associated conditions for the gravel
mining operation. As you may know, Chanhassen is proud of the fact that we are in the forefront of
communities actively working to protect our surface water resources. To this end, we have developed our
Surface Water Protection program that seeks to mitigate non-point source pollution. The City has been in
negotiations with the operator for the past three years over a variety of issues, one of the primary ones being
environmental protection. In spite of the operator's self-designed attempts to deal with off-site runoff, we
have long been concerned that these efforts are at best inadequate and of questionable effectiveness. Events
of this past summer when there was a significant discharge of material into Rice Lake only confirmed this
judgement. We appreciate your Agency's response to this issue as evidenced by the permit and would
encourage you to insure that it is rigorously enforced. If there is anything the City can do to help with the
administration of the permit or respond to related situations elsewhere in the Minnesota River Valley, please
contact me directly.
rely,
Paul Krauss, AICP
Director of Planning
cc: Judy Sventek, Environmental Planner, Metropolitan Council
Tom Scott, City Attorney's Office
Charles Folch, City Engineer
Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council
Jules Smith, Metro Council Representative
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
September 29, 1993
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Thomas Zwiers, President
Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc.
1111 Deuce Road
Elko, Minnesota 55022
RE: DRAFT NPDES/SDS PERMIT MN 0061662
Moon Valley Mining Area
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Hr. Zwiers:
In April 1993 we sent you a letter indicating that the wastewater discharges
from your sand and gravel operation in Chanhassen would be covered for the
present by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (HPCA) general industrial
storm water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Our
letter also noted, "If conditions at the facility result in greater sediment
runoff toward Rice Lake, we may determine that an individual NPDES permit will
then be required." Evidence at Chanhassen this summer indicates that due to
lack of adequate maintenance and failure to improve storm water management at
the site, large amounts of sediment have been transported from your operation
through the Highway 169 grade toward the Minnesota River valley and Rice Lake.
For this reason we are proceeding toward issuing an individual NPDES permit for
this facility. We have enclosed a copy of this draft permit and the public
notice.
If you have any questions please contact Jim Strudell at • (612) 296-7238.
Sincerely,
[Leo
Douglas A. Hall
Supervisor, Permits Unit
Industrial Section h
Water Quality Division
DAH/JS:mbo
Enclosure
cc: See attached page.
Telephone Device for Deaf (TDD): (612) 297-5353
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% paper recycled by consumers
520 Lafayette Rd.: St. Paul. MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300; Regional Offices: Duluth•Brainerd• Detroit Lakes• Marshall• Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer•Primed on Recycled Paper
Permit No: MN 0061662
PUBLIC NOTICE
for the
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
AND STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM (SDS) PERMIT PROGRAM
(Section 402, Clean Water Act, as amended, Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, as
amended, and Minn. Rules ch. 7001)
Draft NPDES and SDS Permit to Construct, Install, and Operate a Wastewater
Disposal System and to Discharge into Waters of the State
Public Notice Issued On: September 29, 1993
Last Day to Submit Comments: October 28, 1993
Name and Address of Applicant: Name and Location of Facility:
•
Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. Moon Valley Mining Area
1111 Deuce Road NE14, NEt4, Section 36, T117N, R23W
Elko, Minnesota 55022 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Receiving Waters: Rice Lake
NOTICE:
The above named applicant has applied for issuance of an NPDES/SDS permit to
construct, install, and operate a wastewater disposal system and to discharge
into the designated receiving waters. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) Commissioner has determined that storm water discharges from this
facility are contributing to a violation of a water quality standard, and has
required the Permittee to be covered by an individual storm water discharge
permit. The Commissioner also has found that the facility operations,
activities and discharge would be more appropriately controlled by an individual
permit than a general permit. The permit will be issued by the MPCA for a term
of approximately five years.
The application, draft permit, and other documents are available for inspection
and may be copied any time between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. , Monday through
Friday. Copies of the public notice are available at the address shown on
page 4. If you have any questions regarding the draft permit or would like to
receive a copy of the draft permit, please contact Jim Strudell at
(612) 296-7238.
On the basis of preliminary staff review and application of applicable standards
and regulations, the Commissioner has made a preliminary determination that
permit MN 0061662 should be issued subject to certain effluent limitations and
special conditions.
Telephone Device for Deaf(TDD): (612) 297-5353
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% paper recycled by consumers
-3pn- Date: September 29, 1993
Permit No: MN 0061662
The Commissioner's determination that the permit should be issued is
preliminary. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments upon
the proposed permit action. The comment period begins and ends as indicated on
page one of this Notice. Any comments received no later than the last day of
the comment period will be considered in the formulation of final
determinations.
Any comments submitted are required by Minn. Rules pt. 7001.0110 to include the
following information:
1. A statement of the person's interest in the permit application or the
draft permit;
2. A statement of the action the person wishes the MPCA to take,
including specific references to sections of the draft permit that
the person believes should be changed; and
3. The reasons supporting the person's position, stated with sufficient
specificity as to allow the Commissioner to investigate the merits of
the person's position.
During the comment period, any person may submit a request for a public
informational meeting or a contested case hearing on the proposed permit
action. A public informational meeting is an informal meeting which the MPCA
may hold to help clarify and resolve issues. A contested case hearing is a
formal proceeding before a state Administrative Law Judge.
Any request for a public informational meeting or a contested case hearing must
include the items 1 through 3 listed above and also a statement of the reasons
the person desires the MPCA to hold a public informational meeting or contested
case hearing and the issues that the person would like the MPCA to address at
the public informational meeting or contested case hearing.
In the absence of any requests for a public informational meeting or contested
case hearing, the final decision of the proposed permit action will be made by
the Commissioner under a delegation made by the MPCA Board. However, any
person may request that this permit be considered by the MPCA Board prior to
final permit action. Such requests must be made in accordance with Minn. Rules
pt. 7000.0500, subp. 6.
rd
Page 1 of: 24
hu Permit No: MN 0061662
SEP 2u 1993
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE AND TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL AND OPERATE A
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM
UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
AND STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ; hereinafter the "Act"), Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, as
amended, and Minn. Rules ch. 7001,
MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE, INC.
(hereinafter the Permittee) is authorized by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) to construct, install and operate a wastewater disposal system
at and to discharge storm water from the Moon Valley Mining Area, in a portion
of the NE'4, NE'/., Section 36, T116N, R23W, Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, to receiving water named Rice Lake, in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective on the date of issuance by the
Commissioner.
This permit and its authorization shall expire at midnight, October 31, 1998.
The Permittee is not authorized to discharge nor to operate the disposal
system after the above date of expiration. In order to receive such
authorization beyond the above date of expiration, the Permittee shall submit
such information and forms as are required by the MPCA no later than 180 days
prior to the above date of expiration pursuant to Minn. Rules pt:. 7001.0040.
Date: Debra L. McGovern
Manager, Industrial Section
Water Quality Division
For Charles W. Williams
Commissioner
Minnesota Pollution Control MPCA
Telephone Device for Deaf(TDD): (612) 297-5353
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% paper recycled by consumers
PART I
-- Page 3 of 24
Permit No: MN 0061662
A. DESCRIPTION
The principal activity at this facility is the open pit mining of sand
and gravel, at an average production rate of 100,000 cubic yards/year.
— Mining is normally not carried out during the winter. No sand and gravel
washing is conducted at the facility. The facility _ consists of all
excavation areas, materials storage areas, waste disposal areas and
_ non-sewage wastewater disposal systems within the area designated on the
map below.
The mine excavation is along the south-facing Minnesota River Valley
bluff. Surface drainage from excavation areas and stockpiles at the
facility is routed through various sedimentation basins. Drainage from
storage sites for lime sludge from the Bloomington water treatment plant,
— and for topsoil, also flow to these basins. Flow from these sites, as
well as an adjacent rifle range, is routed by gravity through culvert
outfall 010, on the south side of Highway 169, to Rice Lake (class 2B,
3B, 4A, 4B, 5 and 6 waters).
The location of the facility and the designated outfall is shown on the
map below.
.''''- . -.) lX,"" ‘ ..-,, ,. '4'.. ., , r-A,,,e --:„......%,,,,, y,,,7,,, _,,,.._ Nrinis
.. ,... .
..„.„,,
"� -,,, •,_,-.,,,., , J..,- • , 1 �.. .,, • :�, /, ri./� 1� U �1 ` - I� \,�` 1��•.- /.____. ..........._ ,...., ,, ........„ , ., -_>
• ,,
__ ---' ) k}---)..,%- . '7.----Cr,,:.2- f--5,4,..)"..):''':`.. -..----- --_-'.-s--------;/../'7. .1 ...ftl \ ig= .4-L: • ' 0,f ,, vy0":.•- A!.-- ',. ..,.'.A .,••
1`'_�( �
ail
.31/' 'Na,...-60l`\.-. r \ 1 BOC. �- \I- ,.`'� J-- ,fir
1•i 913 1 ''1J4471.
fU j! �� Edi.4 ,\I„ ��� ��=`=�.
- : �,` o' 101 (!(
4t yt1�E�a } I .foriv ,-la-_,; ,,,, ,,,�
p, .
.__. _ r-1 v- _ -.,..,_ -.A.
-..,,.. --- ....,._.=,-;./..--• ..,, - -',A,,,/i)I I 1 i r4proojirdir 1. ) ._- __ __ _
,. . ,..:___-•(, 1 .. 1,� -ice • 110
L .115 ', r%: -'" -�.:• I .(�1°
/; .G - --.-.• '. I — -et,- -
-
": ,1 �,_ ..� �C ' 69 -+r-,w- -0- ,100
II 16— -r__.� I g -a•, 3.1•'
u �,_�\ __- - - .,r--
• - I —
° jbg „_ _-,�
- - \ `. -64. .r,- -4/- -Z'. -
- - -
ø - _,L4-- - -�!` - rV- _ -�!- y,-
_.2L — e' yYt` --
... — -4'- \ - -Or -4-' _—A'- - _ Z-0---+r- —
u._
-'M!- — 41- - ..4� W
_. - —III----j. -Of- r11I
_ -
- - - — �- s •• RVER _CO z ) 7/./>------- — —-�
-- .0,.....:. _... ru+- - �� _ ,
1CITX_ 'BOUNDARY
'�` _ -'" COTT CO - '
- a 7.. • n
14110P I
' �O -, •->i-
,,,, __� Trailer A
t
PART I
Page 5 of 24
Permit No: MN 0061662
C. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Pretreatment Requirements
No pollutant shall be discharged from this facility to a publicly
owned treatment works except in accordance with pretreatment
standards established in accordance with the - Act or Minnesota
Statutes or any such local standards or requirements. No pollutant
shall be discharged into any publicly owned disposal system which
interferes with, passes through inadequately treated or otherwise is
incompatible with such disposal system. The Permittee shall not
make modifications to divert any discharge of pollutants authorized
by this permit to a publicly owned treatment works without having
first notified and received the approval of the Commissioner.
2. Water Treatment and Chemical Additives
The Permittee shall not use nor increase the use of water treatment
or chemical additives at this facility other than those additives
noted in Part I,A, and in those amounts noted in Part I,A, without
the prior approval of the Commissioner. The Permittee shall request
approval from the Commissioner in writing at least 30 days in
advance of the proposed new use or increase in use of a water
treatment or chemical additive at this facility. This written
request shall include at least the following information for the
proposed additive:
a. Material Safety Data Sheets, and the complete product use and
instruction labels;
b. The commercial and chemical names;
c. Aquatic toxicity and human health or mammalian toxicity data;
d. Environmental fate information (including, but nDt limited to,
persistence, half-life, intermediate breakdown products, and
bioaccumulation data);
e. Whether the chemical is a suspected carcinogen, mutagen or
teratogen; and
f. The proposed methods, concentrations, and average and maximum
rates and frequencies of chemical addition.
This permit may be modified to restrict the use or discharge of a
water treatment or chemical additive, or to require additional
monitoring.
3. Reopening Clause
This permit shall be modified, or, alternatively„ revoked and
reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent standard or
limitation issued or approved under sections 301 (b)(2)(C), and (D),
304 (b)(2), and 307 (a)(2) of the Act, if the effluent standard or
limitation so issued or approved:
(1) Contains different conditions or is otherwise ;more stringent
than any effluent limitation in the permit; or
(2) Controls any pollutant not limited in the permit.
The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also
contain any other requirements of the Act then applicable.
PART I
Page 7 of 24
Permit No: MN 0061662
6. New Proposed Outfalls
The Permittee shall apply in writing for and shall obtain a major
modification of this permit in order to begin discharge from a new
outfall location. Such an application shall be submitted at least 180
days in advance of the planned starting date of such discharge from a
new outfall, and shall include at least the following:
a. Detailed plans and specifications for the proposed methods of
achieving effluent limits for total suspended solids, based in
part upon representative water quality data for untreated
wastewater;
b. A detailed map and diagram description of the proposed design for
the flow control structures, and route of the discharge to
receiving waters; and
c. The appropriate application fee, in accordance with Minn. Rules
pt. 7002.0250.
7. Application for Permit Reissuance
The Permittee shall include, with the application for reissuance of
this permit, analytical data for at least the following parameters at
outfall 010:
a. Biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, total organic
carbon, fecal coliform, ammonia, temperature;
b. Color, fluoride, nitrate-nitrite (as N), total organic nitrogen,
oil and grease, total phosphorus, chloride, sulfate, surfactants;
and
c. Aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium,
molybdenum, manganese, potassium, sodium, tin, titanium, antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
lithium, nickel, selenium, silver, strontium, thallium, vanadium,
zinc (all in total form) .
These analyses shall be performed on a sample taken no earlier than
180 days before the date on which the application is submitted. The
application also shall include information on the date of the
sampling.
8. Concrete, Asphalt and Wash Plants
The Permittee shall notify the Commissioner in writing at least 180
days in advance of locating a hot mix asphalt concrete plant, a ready
mix concrete plant, or a sand and gravel water wash plant at the
facility. Such additions may require modification of this permit.
9. Non-Storm Water Discharges
This permit does not authorize the discharge of wash water, scrubber
water, equipment maintenance water, spills, oil, hazardous substances
or any wastewater other than storm water.
PART I
Page 9 of 24
Permit No: MN 0061662
D. CLOSURE
The Permittee is responsible for closure and post-closure care of the
facility. The Commissioner may require the Permittee to submit a Pollution
Control Closure Plan for approval. The Permittee shall notify the
Commissioner of any significant reduction or cessation of the operations
described in PART I, A. If a Plan is required, the Commissioner will
inform the Permittee in writing of this request, and will state the
site-specific concerns that the Plan shall address and the date by which
the Plan shall be submitted. The Plan shall provide for the
implementation, including continued maintenance if necessary, of best
management practices and best available technology and shall assure
compliance with all applicable statutes, rules and regulations that apply
to air quality, water quality and the disposal of solid and hazardous
wastes. The Plan also shall include provisions for financial surety for
all closure, postclosure and contingency action activities . If a Plan is
required, closure shall not proceed until this Plan is approved by the
Commissioner.
If the Permittee does not desire to continue the activities authorized by
this permit beyond the expiration date of this permit, the Permittee shall
apply for reissuance of this permit in order to authorize facility closure,
or shall notify the Commissioner in writing that the Permittee does not
intend to apply for reissuance of this permit, no later than 180 days prior
to the expiration date of this permit. The Commissioner may require the
Permittee to apply for reissuance or major modification o:` this permit in
order to authorize facility closure.
PART I
Page 11 of 24
Permit No: MN 0061662
f. Recording and Records Retention
The Permittee shall retain for a minimum of three years all records
and documents in its possession or the possession of its divisions,
employees, agents, accountants, contractors or attorneys that relate
to this permit, including original recordings from any continuous
monitoring instrumentation, and any calibration and maintenance
records. These retention periods shall be automatically extended
during the course of any legal or administrative proceedings or when
so requested by the Regional Administrator, the MPCA, or the
Commissioner.
2. Reporting
a. Submittal of Monthly Report
All monitoring results obtained pursuant to the provisions of this
permit shall be summarized on a monthly basis and reported on the
designated "Discharge Monitoring Report Form." Reports shall .be
submitted monthly and received or postmarked no later than the 21st
day of the month following the month during which the monitoring was
completed. The first report is due on the reporting date following
the first month where monitoring is required beginning on the date
of issuance of this permit. Reports shall be signed by the
Permittee or the duly authorized representative of the Permittee.
Signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall
be submitted to the Commissioner at the following address:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
Industrial Section
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
b. Contents of Monthly Report
The Permittee shall report the results of the monitoring in the
units specified in this permit. The reports or written statements
shall be submitted even if no discharge occurred during the
reporting period.
The report shall include:
(1) A description of any modifications in the wastewater
collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
(2) Any substantial changes in operational procedures;
PART I
Page 13 of 24
Permit No: MN 0061662
F. DEFINITIONS
1. The "Act" means the Clean Water Act, as amended 33 U.S.C. 1251, et
seq.
2. "Best Available Technology" means the application to a treatment
facility of the best available technology economically achievable as
required by Section 301 (b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, United States
Code, Title 33, Section 1311 (b)(2).
3. "Best Management Practices" means practices to prevent or reduce the
pollution of the waters of the state, including schedules of
activities, prohibitions of practices, and other management practice,
and also includes treatment requirements, operating procedures, and
practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge, or
waste disposal or drainage from raw material storage.
4. The "Commissioner" means the Commissioner, or other MPCA staff as
authorized by the Commissioner, of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency as described in Minn. Stat. § 116.03 as amended.
5. "Daily Maximum" concentration means the greatest daily determination
of concentration for any calendar day.
6. "Grab" sample is an individual sample collected at one point in time.
7. "Monthly Average" concentration is defined as the arithmetic mean
(weighted by flow value) of all the daily determinations of
concentration made during the calendar month. Daily determinations of
concentration made using a composite sample shall be the concentration
of the composite sample. When grab samples are used, the daily
determination of concentration shall be the arithmeti: mean (weighted
by flow value) of all the samples collected during the calendar day.
The arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value) is the summation of each
concentration times its respective flow divided by the summation of
the respective flows.
8. The "MPCA" means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, as
constituted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116.02, subd. 1.
9. "Pollutants, Toxic Pollutants, Other Wastes, Point Source, Disposal
System, Waters of the State," and other terms for the purpose of this
permit are defined in Section 502 of the Act and Minn. Stat. § 115.01
as amended and Minn. Rules ch. 7001.
10. The "Regional Administrator" means the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region Administrator for the region in which Minnesota is
located (now Region V).
PART I
Page 15 of 24
Permit No: MN 0061662
c. Have inlet(s) and outlet(s) designed to prevent short circuiting
and the discharge of floating debris. The inlet(s) shall be
placed at an elevation at least above one-half of the basin
design hydraulic storage volume. The outlet(s) shall consist of
a perforated riser pipe wrapped with filter fabric and covered
with crushed gravel. The perforated riser pipe shall be designed
to allow complete drawdown of the basin(s).
d. Include riprap, splash pads or gabions at the outlet(s) to
prevent downstream erosion.
e. Have a design that allows for regular removal of accumulated
sediment by a backhoe or other suitable equipment.
PART II
Page 17 of 24
Permit No: MN 0061662
approve the bypass if the Commissioner finds that the conditions
set forth in (1) and (2) above are met. The Permittee shall
provide the Commissioner such information -as the Commissioner
requires to make a decision on the bypass.
(4) In the case of an unanticipated bypass, the Permittee has
notified the within 24 hours of the bypass. The Permittee shall
provide in writing the reasons for an unanticipated bypass.
c. Water Quality Violations. In no event shall a bypass, whether
anticipated or unanticipated, be permitted if it results in a
violation of applicable water quality standards.
d. Health Hazards/Nuisance Conditions. If an unanticipated bypass
may cause a health hazard or nuisance condition to occur, the
Permittee shall notify the MPCA immediately by calling the
MPCA's emergency response number (612) 296-8100.
e. Written Reports. The Permittee shall include with its -next
Discharge Monitoring Report a written report about any bypass
that caused an exceedance of permit limits. The report shall
contain the following information:
(1) A description of the discharge, the approximate volume, and
the cause of the bypass.
(2) The period of the bypass including exact dates and times,
and, if the bypass is still occurring, the anticipated time the
bypass will continue.
(3) A description of the steps taken to reduce, eliminate, and
prevent recurrence of the bypass.
2. Upsets
An upset is an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional
and temporary exceedance of permit limits due to factors beyond the
control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to
the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment
facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
PART II
Page 19 of 24
Permit No: MN 0061662
4. Adverse Impact
The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any
adverse impact to waters of the State resulting from:
a. All unauthorized discharges accidental or otherwise, of oil,
toxic pollutants or other hazardous substances consistent with
Minn. Stat. § 115.061 and 40 CFR PART 110 and 116;
b. Effluent limitation violations;
c. A bypass; or
d. An upset.
The Permittee shall immediately notify the Commissioner in writing
of any occurrences as described in a. through d. above.
Notification for bypasses and upsets shall be consistent with the
requirements of PART II,A.1 and A.2.
5. Change in Discharge
a. All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the
terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any
pollutant more frequently than, or at a level in excess of,
that identified and authorized by this permit shall constitute
a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit. Such a
violation may result in the imposition of civil or criminal
penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Act, Minn.
Stat. §§ 115.071 and 609.671.
b. Facility modifications, additions, and/or expansions that
increase the plant capacity shall be reported to the
Commissioner (Attn: Industrial Section, Water Quality
Division) and this permit may then be modified or reissued to
reflect such changes.
c. Any anticipated change in the facility discharge, including
any facility expansions, production increases, process
modifications, new or modified industrial discharges, or change
in the quality of existing industrial discharges to the
treatment system that may result in a new or increased
discharge of pollutants shall be reported to the Commissioner
(Attn: Industrial Section, Water Quality Division).
Modification to the permit may then be made to reflect any
necessary change in permit conditions, including any necessary
effluent limitations for any pollutant not identified and
limited herein.
d. In no case are any new connections, increased flows, or
significant changes in influent quality permitted that will
cause violation of the limitations and conditions specified
herein.
• PART II
Page 21 of 24
Permit Nc: MN 0061662
9. Construction
This permit only authorizes the construction of treatment works to
attain compliance with the limitations and conditions of this
permit, after plans and specifications for treatment facilities have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Commissioner prior
to the start of any construction.
10. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for the Permittee in an enforcement action
that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted
activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this
permit.
. PART II
Page 23 of 24
Permit No: MN 0061662
c. To examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda
pertaining to the installation, maintenance, or operation of
the discharge, including but not limited to, monitoring data of
the disposal system or point source or records required to be
kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
d. To inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring procedures
required in this permit; and
e. To sample and monitor any substances or parameters at any
location.
5. Civil and Criminal Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from
civil or criminal penalties for non-compliance with the terms and
conditions provided herein.
6. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution -of
any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject to
under Section 311 of the Act and Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116 as amended.
7. Liability Exemption
This permit authorizes the permittee to perform the activities described
herein under the conditions set forth. In issuing this permit, the
state/agency assumes no responsibility for any damage to persons,
property or the environment caused by the activities of the permittee in
the conduct of its actions, including those activities authorized,
directed or undertaken pursuant to this permit. To the extent the
state/agency may have any liability for the activities of its employees,
that liability is explicitly limited to that provided in the Torts Claim
Act, Minn. Stat. § 3.736.
8. Minnesota Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of
any legal or administrative proceedings or relieve the Permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for violation of effluent and
water quality limitations not included in this permit.
9. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either
real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal
rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State, or local laws or
regulations.
114 Metropolitan Council
AA Advocating regional economic. societal and environmental issues and solutions
•
October 14, 1993
Paul Krauss
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Moon Valley Aggregate NPDES permit
Dear Mr. Krauss:
I am sending you a draft copy of the comments the Council will be sending to the MPCA
regarding the NPDES permit for Moon Valley. I wanted to let you know how we were going to
comment. Hopefully our comments will be of help to you in your review of the permit.
If you have any further questions, feel free to call me at 291-6323.
Sincerely,
Judy Sventek
Environmental Planner
RECEIVED
OCT 1 5 1993
CITY OF CHAT t-IASSEN
Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 612 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD 291-0904
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Recyde0 Pape'
- DRAFT -
October 11, 1993
Industrial Section
Water Quality Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Mn. 55155-4194
RE: NPDES Permit No. MN 0061662
Applicant: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc.
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 15895-1
Thank you for sending us the public notice on the draft NPDES referenced above. We have
administratively reviewed the permit renewal application and offer the following comments.
In January 1990, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and EPA developed a goal to reduce
nonpoint source pollution in the Minnesota River by 40 percent by July 1996. Recently, the
Council adopted a nonpoint source pollution interim strategy which took effect on September 30,
1992. The strategy calls for use of National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) criteria in designing
stormwater ponds and Best Management Practices (BMPs) in dealing with nonpoint source
pollution.
Stormwater is discharged to Rice Lake from the site at outfall 010. Rice Lake discharges to the
Minnesota River at times. Stormwater discharge from the site is in violation of turbidity
standards. Turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) are a major problem in the Minnesota
River. To obtain the best overall view of exact amounts of TSS discharged to Rice Lake, the
Council recommends that the permit require monitoring which focuses more on a composited
event-based sample rather than a instantaneous grab sample. Because of the turbidity violations
in the past, the Council also recommends that a stormwater management plan be required for the
site. The Interim Strategy focuses on the required application of Best Management Practices and
the use of NURP criteria as keys to controlling nonpoint source pollution.
Sincerely,
Dottie Rietow
Chair
cc: Julius C. Smith, Metropolitan Council District No. 4
mat
•
mak
ims
moo
omi
mei
mint
mor
..r
r
1